1

What do Parents and Children talk about at a Natural History Museum?[Author names] Cheryl To, Harriet R. Tenenbaum, Daniel Wormald

[Bios] Cheryl To, PhD is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at London South Bank University, London. Harriet R. Tenenbaum, PhD is Reader at the University of Surrey,

Guildford, London, UK. Daniel Wormald is a Quality Learning Consultant and Curation Manager at the Natural History Museum, London.

[A-Head] AbstractThis study investigated the ways in which families constructed an understanding of evolution exhibits at a natural history museum. We examined museum visitors’ use of exhibit text and the types of evolution-related talk in parent-child conversations while visiting the chimp/human and the artiodactyl exhibits. Participants were 52 families with children aged 2- to 11-years who agreed to be digitally recorded. Analyses of parent-child conversations indicated that families who read exhibit text were more likely to stay longer at the exhibits and to encounter the intended content of the exhibits than families who did not read the text. On-topic conversations tended to focus on labelling and describing the exhibit content rather than talking about evolutionary concepts. Physical descriptions of exhibit displays allowed children to make inferences about novel entities (i.e., those in the exhibits) based on prior knowledge.Keywords: evolution, museums, parent-child conversations, reading exhibit texts[A-Head] IntroductionThe Natural History Museum in London is a repository of evidence for macroevolution; it houses over 70,000,000 specimens ranging from microscopic slides to mammoth skeletons. Despite the abundance of evidence, exhibits at natural history museums do not always explicitly explain the mechanisms (i.e., natural selection) responsible for the diversity of species past and present (Diamond and Scotchmoor 2006). It is often the case that natural history museums present evolution as a linear concept where only selected relevant individuals are exemplified throughout a species’ evolutionary history (Diamond and Scotchmoor 2006). Exhibits that do not explain the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary change, no matter how visually appealing the display, may result in people never learning about the fundamental processes (variation, inheritance, selection, time) that link living things throughout the ages. This study aims to investigate parent-children conversations at a natural history museum.Evolution, notably, is a difficult topic to grasp (Banet and Ayuso 2003; Bishop and Anderson 1990; Diamond and Evans 2007; Evans 2000; Evans et al. 2009; Geraedts and Boersma 2006). Research consistently shows that despite years of formal instruction, the general public continues to have a poor understanding of evolution (Banet and Ayuso 2003; Bishop and Anderson 1990; Geraedts and Boersma 2007). Exhibit texts can be useful tools that help people better understand the topic of evolution at museums (Allen 2002; Falk, Phillips, and Boxer 1992; Leinhardt 2014; Tare et al. 2011). In particular, exhibit texts can inform visitors about the topic of an exhibit and why the exhibit is important. They also allow the museum team to convey other information about the exhibit to its audience (Leinhardt 2014; McManus 1989). In fact, museum texts are such an integral part of the exhibit displays, over 70% of museum visitors read exhibit texts or refer to them as part of their conversations (McManus 1989). Visitors who are more engrossed in the overall environment of the

2

exhibits (i.e., reading labels and wall panels) are likely to learn more than those who do not refer to exhibit text or supplementary materials (Leinhardt 2014). Despite the usefulness of exhibit texts, visitors seldom read the texts in their entirety. Instead, visitors glance quickly at the text to gather as much information as they can so that they may include such information as part of their conversation. Museum texts that do not clearly and succinctly establish the topic of discussion risk losing the audience (McManus 1989).In addition to referring to exhibit text for support, parents use their expert knowledge of their children’s existing content knowledge and their shared experiences to facilitate children’s learning at museums (McManus 1989). In a study exploring dialogic inquiry of family groups in a museum, Ash (2003) found that parents facilitated their children’s understanding of exhibit content by mapping human characteristics to other animal species (personification). Similarly, Reiss and Tunnicliffe (2011) reported that when families visit museums with young children, they tend to draw on their existing repertoire to name, describe, and point out scientific evidence (Reiss and Tunnicliffe 2011). In fact, evidence suggests conversations of family groups at museums tend to be descriptive rather than explanatory (Reiss and Tunnicliffe 2011; Tunnicliffe 2010). Tare et al. (2011) found that at an interactive exhibit on evolution, families visiting with school aged children tended to focus the majority (37.4%) of their discussions on describing scientific evidence, with causal explanations making up just 10.2% of the utterances produced. Furthermore, children’s age tend not a factor in determining how families discuss museum exhibits (Haden 2010; Tunnicliffe 2010). In a study examining family group conversations (an primary school group conversations) at a robotic dinosaur museum exhibit, Tunnicliffe (2010) found that all children aged 5 to 12 were equally likely to name the dinosaur and their body parts, and to talk about the dinosaurs’ feeding behaviours. The only age-related difference was that younger (7 years and younger) children were more interested in whether the dinosaurs were real than older children. In sum, family visits to museums tend to be descriptive in nature, with little explanatory talk (Ash 2003; Reiss and Tunnicliffe 2011). Explanatory talk provided by parents is an important part of the museum experience for children. Children whose parents explain exhibit content are more likely than children who do not receive any explanations to manipulate and attend to key aspects of exhibits. Children whose parents explain exhibit content are therefore more likely to grasp the exhibit’s intended concepts and gain conceptual knowledge (Fender and Crowley 2007; Frazier, Gelman, and Wellman 2009; Shtulman and Checa 2012). However, because a large proportion of the general public tend to have a poor understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying evolutionary change, it is reasonable to expect parents’ explanations about evolution are also likely to be incomplete and flawed. In a seminal study investigating adult museum visitors’ reasoning about species evolution prior to a visit to the natural history museum, Evans et al. (2010) found that while 72% of the participants endorsed a combination of scientific and intuitive explanations when talking about species change, an additional 28% of participants also referenced a creator when explaining species change. Furthermore, evolutionary reasoning was not uniformly applied to all species categories. Museum visitors favoured scientific explanations for mammalian and bird species, intuitive explanations for microscopic species and invertebrates, and creationist explanations for humans (Evans et al. 2010).

3

The purpose of the current study is to determine the ways in which families with children constructed an understanding of evolution exhibits at a natural history museum. We specifically explore parent-child conversations at a chimp/human exhibit and an artiodactyl exhibit. Much work on museum visitors’ reasoning about evolution has been conducted in the United States at Explore Evolution exhibits1 (Evans et al. 2010; MacFadden et al. 2007; Shtulman and Checa, 2012; Spiegel et al. 2012; Tare et al., 2011). These studies conducted in the United States examined the ways in which museum visitors (ages 8 and above) engaged with interactive-table top displays and their reasoning about evolution before and after the visit (Horn, Phillips, Evans, Block, Diamond and Shen 2016; Horn et al. 2012). However, in contrast to previous studies, the exhibits at the Natural History Museum in London where data were collected were static displays. Static displays aim to inform museum visitors through a combination of captivating visual displays and informative texts (Gutwill 2006). It is assumed that museum visitors will be able to learn the intended content by attending to the visual display and the museum text. In this way, exhibit text plays a much greater role at static exhibits than at interactive ones. Young children visiting such exhibits require the help of their parents/caregivers to read or paraphrase text information in a way that children can understand (Hilke 1988; McManus 1989). Considering that children tend to learn more when visiting exhibits with their parents (Crowley et al. 2001a), it may be more beneficial for children to visit museum exhibits with their parents than exploring evolution through interactive elements alone. Tare et al. also explored the ways in which parents and children (ages 7 to 12) made sense of evolution displays while visiting Explore Evolution exhibits. The aim Explore Evolution exhibits was to showcase current evolutionary researchers and their findings (Tare et al. 2011). While the study by Tare et al. (2011) is the most similar to our current study in terms of the type of display, their study only recruited a recruited a small sample of 12 families, thus rendering findings underpowered. Furthermore, considering that children as young as 5-years old are able to grasp the concept of natural selection with appropriate support (Kelemen, Emmons, Schillaci, and Ganea 2014), it is reasonable to expect that children at this age will also be able to learn about evolution in an evidence rich environment. In contrast to previous studies, the exhibits at the Natural History Museum in London where data were collected are static displays. Another reason to investigate parent-child conversation about evolution among British families is that in the midwestern US where similar studies have been conducted, the population has been found to be more religious (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2005) and less likely to accept the contemporary theory of evolution than the UK general public (ComRes, 2009; Miller et al. 2006). There is also evidence to suggest that children growing up in England tend not to endorse creationist explanations, even when no alternatives are available (Tenenbaum, To, Wormald and Pegram 2015; To, Tenenbaum, and Hogh in press). British families’ acceptance of evolution and their children’s reluctance to endorse creationist

1 Explore Evolution exhibits are specially designed exhibits intended to portray evolution research as a contemporary research topic. They feature living scientists using a multitude of scientific methods to conduct research to further our understanding about biological evolution. Another key aspect of Explore Evolution exhibits is that they incorporate interactive exhibits that allow museum visitors to manipulate real scientific data, e.g., measuring the size of finches beaks. The inclusion of more interactive elements has been found to prolong museum visitors’ active engagement at exhibits (Tisdal and Perry 2004).

4

explanations, however, does not mean that they are more knowledgeable about the topic. Even when visitors accept the theory of evolution, they are as likely as those who reject evolution to hold misconceptions about evolution (Abraham-Silver and Kisiel 2008). For these reasons, it is important to understand how British families make sense of evolution exhibits at a natural history museum. Only in this way are we able to tailor evolutionary exhibits to suit UK and less religious audiences.By first examining the reading behaviours of families, this study will compare the types of evolution-related concepts families endorse whist visiting the chimp/human exhibit and the artiodactyl exhibit at the Natural History Museum in London. Based on previous research on museum visitors’ use of exhibit text (McManus 1989) and their behaviour at natural history museums (Tare et al. 2011), it is expected that parents and children will refer to museum text to identify and make sense of exhibit displays (hypothesis 1). Furthermore, based on findings by Tare et al. (2011), it is expected that the majority of parent-child conversations will focus on describing scientific evidence (hypothesis 2). Third, it is expected that the concepts embedded in children’s evolution-related talk will closely mirror the types of concepts used by their parents (Tare et al. 2011; hypothesis 3). Finally, age-related differences in the way children talked about the exhibits were explored.[A-Head] Method[B-Head] ParticipantsThis study took place at the Natural History Museum in London, UK. Participants were 52 families who visited the museum. Twenty-seven families visited the chimp/human exhibit and 25 families visited the artiodactyl exhibit. A family was defined as a multi-generational group with at least one child and one adult who appeared to be visiting the exhibit together. To ensure that children were approximately the same age at both exhibits, researchers approached families with children who appeared to be between the ages of 5- and 12-years. Parents were also asked to provide their child(ren)’s date of birth on the consent form. The resulting sample is described below.At the human evolution exhibit, there were 7 families with one child and 10 families with two children for a mean of 1.37 (SD = .49) children in each family. There were a total of 37 children (20 girls, 16 boys, and one child whose gender was not recorded). Children’s ages ranged from 2- to 11-years-old. The mean age of the first child was 7.55 years (SD = 2.20), the mean age of the second child was 5.00 years (SD = 1.41). There were 23 families with one adult and four families with two adults (Nadults = 31, 20 women, 11 men) with a mean of 1.07 (SD = .27) adults in each family. Families spent, on average 1 minute 21 seconds at this exhibit (SD = 1 min 8 s; minimum = 0 min 15 s, maximum = 5 min 48 s).At the Artiodactyl exhibit, there were 14 families with 1 child, and 11 families with 2 children for a mean of 1.44 (SD = .50) children in each family. There were a total of 36 children (16 girls, 20 boys) aged between 3- to 11-years. The mean age of the first child was 6.32 (SD = 2.78) years, the mean age of the second child was 6.00 (SD = 3.07) years. Amongst the adults, there were 18 families with one adult and 7 families with two adults (Nadults = 32, 24 women, 8 men). On average, families spent 1 minute 48 seconds (SD = 1 min 31 s, minimum = 0 min 11 s, maximum = 5 min 37 s) at the artiodactyl exhibit.[B-Head] Procedure

5

As families approached the exhibits (chimp/human or artiodactyl), a member of the research team approached them to ask if they would be willing to be digitally recorded if they visited the section of the exhibit that was being taped. For families choosing to participate in the study, parents were asked to sign a consent form and children were asked to wear a large sticker identifying their age. Digital cameras and microphones were set up at each of the two exhibits, and were controlled by a member of the research team. The cameras were turned on only when parents had consented to take part in the study approached an exhibit. Therefore, only families who had given permission to participate were recorded. The two exhibits were chosen for their similarity in aesthetic appeal and the type of language used in the exhibit text panels.

Chimp/human exhibit. This display consisted of four life-like primates (gorilla, chimpanzee, white-handed gibbon, orangutan) and a life-like human-being. Alongside the display is a large sign that prompts visitors to consider which one of the four species of primate is most closely related to human-beings. The exhibit panel presents a number of characteristics that are common to gorillas, human beings, chimpanzees and other primates, and how these characteristics differ between species (i.e. chimpanzees have legs shorter than arms, humans have arms shorter than legs, etc.; see Table 1). The text panel also explains that because some characteristics are shared by other primates as well, the evidence provided here cannot be used to determine the relationship between the human beings, gorillas and the chimpanzees (Table 1). Appearing directly above this text panels are two cladograms that depicts the possible common ancestries between human beings, gorillas and chimpanzees.

[Figure 1][Figure 1 caption] Figure 1. Possible common ancestries between human beings, gorillas and chimpanzees.Located adjacent to this is yet another panel with a cladogram depicting the

relationship between humans, other hominids, and great apes. Below the cladogram, it reads: “Our closest living relatives are either chimpanzees, or gorillas, or both chimpanzees and gorillas. At present, there is not enough evidence to decide between these three views. But in the rest of this exhibition, we assume that our closest living relatives are both chimpanzees and gorillas. The next question is … Do we have any closer relatives amongst the fossils? You can find out in the next section of the exhibition.”Artiodactyl exhibit. The artiodactyl exhibit displayed eight life-like species of

hoofed-animals naturally found in Africa. Artiodactyl is a classification within the animal kingdom referring to even-toed ungulates. Within this display are exemplars of a blue wildebeest/brindled gnu, a black wildebeest/white-tailed gnu, a lesser kudu, a gerenuk, an impala, a Grimm’s duiker, a kirk’s dik-dik, and a thomson’s gazelle.

[Figure 2][Figure 2 caption] Figure 2. The artiodactyl exhibit display: a blue

wildebeest/brindled gnu, a black wildebeest/white-tailed gnu, a lesser kudu, a gerenuk, an impala, a Grimm’s duiker, a kirk’s dik-dik, and a thomsons’ gazelleBecause of the size and the shape of the display, we were only able to record one side of exhibit containing two text panels. The text panels described the black wildebeest and the gerenuk. In particular, the text panels described where the animals lived, how they fed, the

6

particular adaptations that allowed the animals to feed on different types of vegetation and to run long distances.At both exhibits, each specimen was accompanied by labels indicating the name of the species. [B-Head] Conversation Transcription and Coding Digitally-recorded data was transcribed verbatim onto a Word document. Next, all subsequent codings were recorded. In the transcription of the recordings, the researcher also noted the length of time that each family spent at the exhibits. Only families who conversed in English were included in this sample. The analysis of the data was conducted in two parts. First, we were interested in whether or not families referred to the exhibit text when discussing the exhibits. If families made at least one reference to the exhibit text (beyond using exhibit text to identify animal species) in their conversations, they were given a score of 1. If none of the members in the family group made any reference to the exhibit text, the family was given a score of 0. In the second part of the analysis, we were interested in the ways in which families talked about evolution at the exhibit displays. Therefore, transcripts were coded for utterances that were related to evolution. It must be noted, however, that the use of evolution-related concepts does not demonstrate that parents and children endorsed the scientific view of evolution. The coding scheme was adapted from Tare et al. (2011) and Evans et al. (2010). The two authors did a preliminary reading of the transcripts from both exhibits individually. Each author noted evolution-related concepts present in the transcripts. The authors then met once more to compile a list of codes relevant to the transcripts. Any ambiguity of the codes was discussed and clarified at the subsequent meetings. The final coding scheme consisted of 13 codes (see Table 2); codes relevant to our data were retained. Parent-child conversations were coded using the following 13 codes: relatives, function, features, comparison, variation, evolution term, classification, teleology, explanations, prior knowledge, time, intention, and naming (Table 2). When families visited the exhibit, many of the participants named the individual species present in the exhibit (e.g. “That’s an orangutan, that’s a gorilla”), other also specified the classification of animals to which the species belonged (e.g. “these animals belongs to a group called artiodactyls”). In addition to naming and classifying, some participants also made between-species comparisons (e.g. “that one has longer arms than that one”), or within-species comparisons (variation; e.g. “males have horns but females don’t”). The code relatives was assigned to conversations where participants suggested that the different species within the same exhibit were related to each other. Participants were also found to describe specific features of the species (e.g. “have stripes”) and suggest possible functions for those adaptations (e.g. “they have stripes so they can hide”). The code explanations was assigned when participants connected two ideas either using the word because or when two ideas were placed next to each other and the relationship was implied (e.g. “We are different from chimps because we walk on two feet”). In cases where participants offered purposive explanations for adaptive traits, the code teleology was assigned (e.g. “that’s for biting and that’s for chewing”). In instances where participants implied that animals were capable of intentional thought, the code intention was assigned (e.g. “… Climbing up to get the nice, fresh, green leaves”). The code time was assigned to instances where museum visitors indicated that evolution is a slow process that takes many,

7

many years (e.g. “… so over time, we’ve changed and evolved from being these guys to humans”). Visitors’ conversations sometimes included information that was not available at the exhibit. These utterances were coded as prior knowledge (e.g. “humans have 32 teeth, I think”, see Table 2).

Reliability. In the first part of the analysis, the first author and a research assistant coded 20% (10) of the transcripts independently. By first carefully reading photographs of the exhibit text, and referring to the exhibit text while reading the transcripts, the two coders reached a reliability of 100% (kappa = 1.00).In the coding of the second part of the analysis, both the first and second authors collaborated to create the coding scheme. Using this coding scheme, authors each coded 20% of the transcripts (10) separately and reached an overall kappa of .85. Fleiss (1981) considers kappa’s between .60 to .75 as good and over .75 as excellent. The first author coded the remaining transcripts.[A-Head] ResultsIn families where there were more than one adult, adult talk codes were tallied and combined. The same procedure was followed for children’s talk codes. Overall, there were a total of 429 recorded talk codes. Thus, the family was the unit of analysis.Research question 1: Did families refer to the exhibit text when visiting the exhibits? How were exhibit texts used in their conversations?Overall, 42.3% of the families made at least one reference to the exhibit text whilst visiting the exhibits. The percentage of families that used exhibit text whilst visiting the chimp/human and artiodactyl exhibits (40.7% and 44%, respectively) were not significantly different from each other, χ2(1, N = 52) = .06, p = .81. Therefore, families’ use of exhibit text at the two exhibits will not be examined separately. To determine whether or not families’ use of exhibit text was related to their length of stay at the exhibits and parents’ use of evolution-talk codes, two point-biserial correlations were conducted. It was found that families’ use of exhibit text was positively correlated with both their length of stay at the exhibits, rpb = .50, p < .001, and the amount of parents used evolution-talk codes, rpb = .35, p = .01. Research question 2: How was the concept of evolution discussed at the human evolution exhibit versus the artiodactyl exhibit? What type of evolutionary talk was present at each of the two exhibits?Initial screening of the transcripts revealed that some of the talk codes occurred much more commonly than others, creating a set of data that was positively skewed. Therefore, in the following analysis, non-parametric tests were used to examine talk codes that occurred at least 25% of the time (relatives, features, function, comparison, variation, naming). Adult talk codes for each exhibit will be examined first, followed by an investigation of the relationship between the types of talk exhibited by adults and children.The average time spent at the chimp/human and artiodactyl exhibits were 1 minute, 21 seconds and 1 minute, 48 seconds, respectively. The length of time that families stayed at each of these exhibits were not significantly different from each other, t(49) = -1.20, p =.24, r = .17. To determine whether the length of stay was related to the number of evolution-talk codes produced by adults, a Kendall’s Tau correlation was conducted and found a positive correlation, τ = .37, p < .001.

8

Although families spent approximately the same amount of time at each exhibit, adults were more likely to generate evolution-talk codes at the chimp/human exhibit than at the artiodactyl exhibit, U = 213.50, z = -2.29, p = .02, r = -.32. In comparing the talk codes that occurred at least 25% of the time, the results of a Mann-Whitney test indicated that adults were more likely to name the animals (U = 180.00, z = -3.06, p = .002, r = -.43) and to talk about how different species are related (U = 225.00, z = -3.13, p = .002, r = -.43) at the human evolution exhibit than the artiodactyl exhibit (Table 3). In examining the types of talk present at each of the exhibits, a pair of Friedman’s test was performed. Findings indicated that there was a significant effect of the type of talk used at the human, χ2(5) = 43.38, p < .001, and artiodactyl exhibits, χ2(5) = 15.18, p = .01. Wilcoxon tests were used to follow up this finding. A Bonferroni correction was applied and so all effects are reported at a .003 significance level. A follow-up Wilcoxon test for the artiodactyl exhibit did not reveal any significant effects in adults’ use of evolution-talk codes; therefore, no comparisons are reported here.In examining the talk codes endorsed at the chimp/human exhibit, adults were more likely to talk about the features of the species in the exhibit than to talk about the function of adaptations (z = -2.97, p = .003, r = -.41) or discuss the variations that exists within species (z = -3.21, p = .001 r = -.44). Adults were also more likely to name the species in the exhibit than to talk about how the different species were related (z = - 3.82, p < .001, r = -.53), or to talk about within-species variation (z = -3.73, p < .001, r = -52). In summary, the longer families stayed at the exhibits, the more likely they were to use evolution-related concepts in their conversations. Families also tended to endorse more evolution-related talk at the chimp/human evolution exhibit than at the artiodactyl exhibit. Specifically, adults were more likely to name the types of animals and discuss how those animals were related to one another at the human exhibit than the artiodactyl exhibit. However, talk about how the different species may be related at the human exhibit was rare. Adults were more likely to describe and compare the physical attributes (features) of the great apes than to discuss how the various species may be related. Research Question 3: How did parents and children talk about the human and artiodactyl exhibits? Are parents’ and children’s talk at the exhibits related to one another?Overall, a Wilcoxon test indicates that parents produced significantly more evolution-related talk codes than children, z = -3.51, p < .001, r = .49, with parents responsible for 77% of the evolution-talk codes produced, and children responsible for 22.6%. In examining whether or not parents’ and children’s use of evolution concepts were related to each other, a series of Kendall’s tau tests were conducted. Results indicate that the number of times parents and children named the species present in the exhibit (τ = .59, p < .001), the number of between-species comparison made (τ = .36, p = .006), and the number of within-species comparisons (variation) made (τ = .52, p < .001) were related to one another. Furthermore, parents’ and children’s talk about the features of the species (τ = .42, p = .002) was also related to each other. None of the children talked about the functions of species adaptation, therefore, this relationship was not explored (see Table 4).Comparisons between parents’ and children’s use of evolution-related concepts for each of the exhibits individually indicated that parents were more likely than children to talk about

9

specific species features (z = -2.26, p = .02, r = -.31), make between-species comparisons (z = -2.73, p = .006, r = -.37), and name (z = -3.17, p = .002, r = -.44) the species at the human evolution exhibit. At the artiodactyl exhibit, parents were more likely than children to talk about the functions of species adaption (z = -2.12, p = .03, r = -.29) and discuss the features of the different species (z = -2.39, p = .02, r = -.33). Parents were also more likely than children to name the types of species present at the artiodactyl exhibit (z = -2.24, p = .03, r = -.31; see Table 4).Were there differences based on children’s age?Finally, because children’s ages varied so widely in this study (between 2- to 11-years), we also conducted a Mann-Whitney U test to determine whether there are age-related differences in the types of evolutionary-talk codes endorsed by older and younger children. Children aged between 2- and 6-years were recoded as the “younger” group, while children aged 7- to 11-years were recoded as the “older” group. There were 35 children in the “younger” group and 38 children in the “older” group. The rationale for these groupings is that, from previous literature (e.g., Hatano and Inagaki, 2000; etc.), children will have developed a theory of biology by the time they are around 5- or 6-years old. Children who have developed a common sense understanding of biology may experience the exhibits differently from those who have not yet developed an understanding of biology. Differences in experience between children with and without a common sense theory of biology may be manifested in the way they talk about the exhibits. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant age-related differences in older and younger children’s endorsement of relative, function, feature, and variation (all ps > .05). However, older children were more likely to make between species comparisons, U = 412.50, z = -2.425, p = .02, r = .31. In summary, parents’ and children’s evolution-related talk at the two museum exhibits was related to one another. At the chimp/human exhibit, parents were more likely than children to name, describe, make between (comparison) and within-species (variation) comparisons. At the artiodactyl exhibit, in addition being more likely to name the animals, parents were also more likely than children to describe (features) the animals, and talk about the functions of those attributes. In addition, older children made more between species comparisons than younger children. Older children’s greater likelihood to make between species comparisons may be a function of their more advanced observational skills and verbal ability.[A-Head] DiscussionThe purpose of the current study is to examine the ways in which families constructed their own understandings of evolutionary exhibits and also to determine whether family groups discuss human and non-human entities in similar or different ways. In line with previous research (e.g., Reiss and Tunnicliffe 2011), much of the talk at the exhibits involved parents and children naming the animals and describing the features of the animals on display. Only occasionally did adult museum visitors read the information available at the exhibits. What is new and interesting about the current findings is that British museum visitors in this study show a different behavioural pattern when visiting a natural history museum from their American counterparts. More specifically, whereas past research has indicated that families visiting natural history museums tended to spend less time at human evolution exhibits than non-human evolution exhibits (Tare et al. 2011), there was no difference in the length of time that families spent at the chimp/human exhibit and at the artiodactyl exhibit. Furthermore,

10

whereas Evans et al. (2010) reported that museum visitors tended to endorse evolutionary explanations when reasoning about mammal and bird species while preferring creationist explanations when reasoning about human species, evidence from the this study indicated that families tended to produce more evolution related-talk at the chimp/human exhibit than at the artiodactyl exhibit. We propose two possible reasons why British families tended to talk more at the chimp/human exhibit than at the artiodactyl exhibit.First, from Micklethwait and Wooldridge (2005) we know that the general public in the American Midwest tends to be more religious then the British general public. Since the British public are generally less religious than their American counterparts, this may mean that they are more open to discussing how humans have evolved over time. That the British general public is more open to discussing human evolution is supported in the current findings that even though families spent roughly the same amount of time at a human and a non-human exhibit, they tended to produce more evolution-related talk at the human exhibit than the non-human exhibit. The British general public’s low support for creationist explanations when discussing species evolution is also evidenced in Tenenbaum et al. (2015). In a study investigating British young people’s (age 14) reasoning about species evolution Tenenbaum et al. (2015) found that while the majority of students used a combination of intuitive and scientific explanation to reason about biological evolution, they rarely endorsed creationist explanations. This is in contrast to findings by Evans et al. (2010) who found that just under a third (28%) of adult museum visitors tended to use creationist reasoning when talking about biological evolution. That there are cultural differences in the way British and American families reason about biological matter is also supported in Keleman (2003). In a study investigating British and American young children’s (ages 7 to 10) use of teleology when reasoning about naturally occurring biological and non-biological entities, Kelemen (2003) found that even though British and American children were equally likely to ascribe teleological thinking to living and non-living things, British children however were less likely to attribute purpose to non-living natural kinds. That minute differences in cultural experiences can contribute to the way children reason about living things is also evidenced by Panagiotaki, Nobes, Ashraf, and Aubby (2015). Panagiotaki et al. (2015) explored white British, British Muslim, and Pakistani Muslim children’s understanding about death. They found that even though British Muslim and Pakistani Muslim children shared the same faith, British Muslim children and white British children were similar in the way they reasoned about death than British Muslim and Pakistani Muslim children (Panagiotaki et al 2015). Taken together, evidence suggests that cultural differences may very well explain why British families in this study did not endorse creationist reasoning when biological evolution. Another reason why museum visitors tended to produce more evolution-related talk at the human evolution exhibit than the non-human evolution exhibit may be because the families targeted in this study have children who are just learning about the human body in the national school curriculum (Department for Education, 2013). In coming across the human evolution exhibit, parents may have taken the opportunity to talk about the human body in a novel setting. However, that children are learning about the human body at school does not adequately explain why there is more talk overall at the chimp/human exhibit than at the artiodactyl exhibit. Families not only named and described the human specimen on display, they also made a number of observations and projections of the non-human primates.

11

Drawing on the literature on categorical memberships (e.g., Gelman and Wellman 1991; etc.), that a chimp, a gorilla, and a human were all displayed in the same exhibit labelled the ‘Great Apes’ may have indicated to children that all the species within this display belong to the same category. Using their knowledge of humans and along with some prompting from the exhibit text, adult and children museum visitors may have found that they had more to talk about at a familiar exhibit (chimp/human) than an unfamiliar exhibit (artiodactyls). Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that familiarity with a species category and or having general knowledge about biological entities significantly increases children’s knowledge about biological entities (e.g., Inagaki 1990; William and Smith 2006). For example, Inagaki (1990) found that children who raised goldfish as pets made more inferences about a related but different type of species (a frog) than children who did not raise goldfish. Similarly, Williams and Smith (2006) reported that children who had pets or had witnessed their pets’ pregnancy and birth processes had a more sophisticated understanding of biological inheritance. In sum, a combination of family characteristics (e.g., children’s age, what they are learning in school, parents’ and children’s prior knowledge), characteristics of the museum exhibit (e.g., the grouping of the Great Apes into one exhibit), and the exhibit text may have contributed to the different talk patterns at the chimp/human exhibit and the artiodactyl exhibit.[B-Head] The Use of Exhibit TextNext, let us examine how families made use of the exhibit text to interpret the museum displays. In line with existing literature on parent-child conversations at museum exhibit tend to focus on naming and describing scientific (Ash 2003; Kisiel, Rowe, Vartabendian, and Kopczak 2012; Tunnicliffe 1996). Here is an example of a conversation:

MOTHER: So what ones are in here then?BOY: Lesser kudu, what’s that?DAD: Lesser kudu, that’s right.MOTHER: So that’s a male one, so the female one of this would be smaller, yeah.(Artiodactyl, boy, age 8)

MOTHER: Can you see them? See?GIRL: What’s those?MOTHER: They’re different, they’re chimpanzees, and gorillas, and they’re really

similar to humans, aren’t they? Because they can walk around on two legs as well if they wanted to.

GIRL: What’s that?(Chimp/human, girl, age 4)

Using the evidence collected, children also made inferences about novel entities based on their categorical memberships (see Gelman and Markman 1986; 1987). For example:

MOTHER: Can you tell me what you can see here? What’s that one? What’s he eating?

MOTHER: Is he like a deer? MOTHER: What has he got on his back?BOY: StripesMOTHER: That’s right!

12

[…]BOY: He can run fast.MOTHER: Is that right? Did you say he could run fast?(Artiodactyl exhibit, boy, age 5)

While the activity of naming and describing scientific evidence may not be directly related to children’s understanding about evolution, it may perhaps be useful in helping children establish the categorical memberships of such entities. In the excerpt above, a child (age 5) made an inference about the running ability of a novel entity, a wildebeest. It can be assumed that most children at five years old from westernised, urban communities do not have in-depth knowledge about wildebeests or gerenuks (or other species presented at this exhibit). Children growing up in an urban, western culture tend to have poor understandings of the natural world (Atran, Medin, and Ross 2004). Nevertheless, based on the evidence that the mother and son built together, the boy made an inference that wildebeests had the ability to run fast. Therefore, it may be that through the process of naming and describing scientific evidence, children are learning about the categorical memberships of novel biological entities (Gelman and Markman 1986, 1987).Finally, the evolution-related talk codes that children endorsed were similar to the ones that their parents endorsed, with parents including more evolution-related talk codes in their conversations than children. From a Vygotskian perspective where language is considered to be the means through which experiences become knowledge, that parents’ and children’s evolutionary talk codes were correlated with each other indicates that children’s experiences at museums are greatly influenced by their parents’ existing knowledge about a topic, and their personal goals and agendas (Gaskins 2008; Leinhardt 2014; Tare et al. 2011). [A-Head] ConclusionIn sum, this study found that families visiting museums with children tended to focus on naming and describing scientific evidence with relatively few attempts to include causal mechanistic explanations in their conversations. While Reiss and Tunnicliffe (2011) reported that families tended not to use exhibit text to help them make sense of the exhibits, families in this study used exhibit text at least 42% of the time. And because we only coded instances where parents directly read or when parents paraphrased exhibit text as evidence of using museum signage, the actual proportion of families who read exhibit text may be even greater. Next, consistent with findings in Tunnicliffe (1996), we found little difference in the way older and younger elementary school children talked about the evolutionary exhibits. That children’s talk at the exhibits were conceptually similar regardless of whether or not they have developed a theory of biology may indicate that there is an area of knowledge that has not been exploited, but may be valuable in helping museum visitors grasp the concept of evolution. Finally, the reluctance of British families to reason about evolution using creationist explanations warrants further research. ReferencesAllen, Sue. 2004. “Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More than Entertain.” Science Education 88 (S1): S17–S33. doi:10.1002/sce.20016.Ash, Doris. (2003). “Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of familiy groups in a museum.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (2): 138-162. doi:10.1002/tea.10069

13

Atran, Scott, Douglas L. Medin, and Norbert O. Ross. 2005. “The Cultural Mind: Environmental Decision Making and Cultural Modeling within and across Populations.” Psychological Review 112 (4): 744–76. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.744Banet, E., and G. E. Ayuso. 2003. “Teaching of Biological Inheritance and Evolution of Living Beings in Secondary School.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (3): 373–407. doi:10.1080/09500690210145716.Bishop, Beth A., and Charles W. Anderson. 1990. “Student Conceptions of Natural Selection and Its Role in Evolution.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 (5): 415–27. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270503. Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. Vol. Expanded E. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368.Crowley, Kevin, Maureen A .Callanan, Harriet R. Tenenbaum, and Elizabeth Allen. 2001. “Parents Explain More Often to Boys than to Girls during Shared Scientific Thinking.” Psychological Science : A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS 12 (3): 258–61. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00347Department for Education. 2013. The national curriculum in England: Key stage 1 and 2 framework document. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdfDiamond, Judy, and E. Margaret Evans. 2007. “Museums Teach Evolution.” Evolution 61(6): 1500-1506. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00121.xDiamond, Judy, and Judy Scotchmoor. 2006. “Exhibiting Evolution.” Museums and Social Issues 1: 21-24. Evans, E. Margaret, Amy N. Spiegel, Wendy Gram, Brandy N. Frazier, Medha Tare, Sarah Thompson, and Judy Diamond. 2009. “A Conceptual Guide to Natural History Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (3): 326-353. doi:10.1002/tea.20337.Falk, John H., Kenneth E. Phillips, and Jennifer Johnson Boxer. 1992. “Invisible forces exhibition: Using evaluation to improve an exhibition.” Visitor Studies 5(1): 212-226. doi: 10.1080/10645579209445775Fender, Jodi G., and Kevin Crowley. 2007. “How Parent Explanation Changes What Children Learn from Everyday Scientific Thinking.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28 (3): 189–210. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.02.007.Frazier, Brandy N, Susan A Gelman, and Henry M Wellman. 2009. “Preschoolers’ Search for Explanatory Information within Adult-Child Conversation.” Child Development 80 (6): 1592–1611. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01356.x.Gaskins, Susanne. 2008. “Designing Exhibits to Support Families’ Cultural Understandings.” Exhibitionist 27(1): 11-19. Gelman, Susan A. 1988. “The Development of Induction within Natural Kind and Artifact Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 20 (1): 65–95. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(88)90025-4Gelman, Susan A., and Kathleen E. Kremer. 1991. “Understanding Natural Cause: Children’s Explanations of How Objects and Their Properties Originate.” Child Development 62 (2): 396–414. doi: 10.2307/1131012

14

Gelman, Susan A., and Ellen M. Markman. 1986. “Categories and Induction in Young Children.” Cognition 23 (3): 183–209. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90034-X———. 1987. “Young Children’s Inductions from Natural Kinds: The Role of Categories and Appearances.” Child Development 58 (6): 1532–41. doi: 10.2307/1130693Gelman, Susan A. 2004. “Psychological Essentialism in Children.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404-409. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001Gelman, Susan A., and John D. Coley. 1990. “The Importance of Knowing a Dodo Is a Bird: Categories and Inferences in 2-Year-Old Children.” Developmental Psychology 26 (5): 796–804. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.26.5.796.Geraedts, Caspar L., and Kerst Th. Boersma. 2006. “Reinventing Natural Selection.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (8): 843–70. doi:10.1080/09500690500404722.Hilke, D. D. 1988. “Chapter 12: Strategies for Family Learning in Museums.” Visitor Studies 1 (1): 120–34. doi:10.1080/10645578809445746.Inagaki, K, and G Hatano. 1996. “Young Children’s Recognition of Commonalities between Animals and Plants.” Child Development 67 (6): 2823–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01890.xInagaki, Kayoko, and Giyoo Hatano. 2006. “Young Children’s Conception of the Biological World.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (4): 177–81. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00431.x.Jipson, J., and Maureen Callanan. 2003. “Mother-Child Conversation and Chidlren’s Understanding of Biological and Non-Biological Changes in Size.” Child Developemnt 74: 629-644. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402020 Kelemen, Deborah, Natalie A. Emmons, Rebecca S. Schillaci, Patricia A. Ganea. 2014. “Young children can be taught basic natural selection using a picture-storybook intervention.” Psychological Science 25 (4): 893-902. doi: 10.1177/0956797613516009 Kelemen, Deborah, Deborah Widdowson, Tamar Posner, Ann L. Brown, and Krista Casler. 2003. “Teleo-Functional Constraints on Preschool Children’s Reasoning about Living Things.” Developmental Science 6 (3): 329–45. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00288.Kisiel, James, Rowe Shawn, Melanie A. Vartebedian, Charles Kopczak. 2012. “Evidence for fmaily engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits.” Science Education 96 (6): 1047-1070. doi: 10.1002/sec.21036Leinhardt, Gaea. 2014. “Museums, conversations, and learning.” Revista Colombiana de Psicologia 23 (1): 13-33. doi: 10.15446/rcp.v23n1.41000McManus, Paulette M. 1989. “Oh, Yes, They Do: How Museum Visitors Read Labels and Interact with Exhibit Texts.” Curator 32(3): 174-189. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.1989.tb00718.xMicklethwait, J. and Adrian Wooldridge. The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. New York: Penguin, 2005.Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto. 2006. “Public Acceptance of Evolution” 313 (August): 765–66. doi: 10.1126/science.1126746Panagiotaki, Georgia, Gavin Nobes, Aisha Ashraf, and Herjit Aubby. 2014. “British and Pakistani children’s understanding of death: Cultural and developmental influences.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 33 (1): 31-44. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12064

15

Reiss, Michael J., Sue Dale Tunnicliffe. 2011. “Dioramas as depictions of reality and opportunities for learning in biology.” Curator: The Museum Journal 54 (4): 447-459. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00109.xShtulman, Andrew, and Isabel Checa. 2012. “Parent-Child Conversations about Evolution in the Context of an Interactive Museum Display” 5 (1): 27–46. https://sites.oxy.edu/shtulman/documents/2012e.pdfTare, Medha, Jason French, Brandy N. Frazier, Judy Diamond, and E. Margaret Evans. 2011. “Explanatory Parent-Child Conversation Predominates at an Evolution Exhibit.” Science Education 95 (4): 720–44. doi:10.1002/sce.20433.Tenenbaum, Harriet R., Jess Prior, J., Catherine L. Dowling, and Ruth Frost. (2010). “Supporting Parent-Child Conversations in a History Museum.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (2): 241-254. doi: 10.1348/000709909X470799Tenenbaum, Harriet, R., and Campbell Leaper. 2003. “Parent-Child Conversation about Science: Socialization of Gender Inequities.” Developmental Psychology, 39: 34-47. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39-1.34Tenenbaum, Harriet, R., Cheryl To, Daniel Wormald, and Emma Pegram. 2015. “Changes and stability in reasoning after a field trip to a natural history mseum”. Science Education 99 (6): 1073-1091. doi: 10.1002/sce.21184Thomas, Gregory P., and David Anderson. 2013. “Parents’ Metacognitive Knowledge: Influences on Parent-Child Interactions in a Science Museum Setting.” Research in Science Education 43 (3): 1245–65. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9308-zTunnicliffe, Sue D. 1996. “The relationship between pupils’ age and the content of convrsation generated at three types of animal exhibits.” Resaerch in Science Education 26 (4) : 461-480. doi: 10.1007/BF02357455———. 2010. Conversations of family and primary school groups at robotic dinosaur exhibits in a museum: what do they talk about? International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 739-754. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044071Williams, Joanne M., Lesley A. Smith. 2010. “Concepts of kinship relations and inheritance in childhood and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28: 523-546. doi: 10.1348/026151009X449568

16

AppendixTable 1Comparison of characteristics between gorillas, human beings, chimpanzees and other primates.Shared Characteristics

Other Primates Gorillas Human Being Chimpanzees

Bone and teeth Limb length

Canine teeth

Thumbs

Arms and legs equal

Large

Long

Legs shorter than arms

Large

Short

Arms shorter than legs

Small

Long

Legs shorter than arms

Large

ShortSoft parts of body Head hair

Calf muscles

Buttocks

Short

Small

Thin

Short

Small

Thin

Long

Large

Fat

Short

Small

ThinChromosomes Total number

Structure of chromosomes 5 and 12

‘fluorescence’ of chromosomes Y and 13

42 or more 48

Different from other primatesSame as human beings

46

Like other primates

Same as gorillas

48

Different from other primatesLike other primates

Molecules Alpha-

haemoglobin chain, compared with that of a human being

‘GM factor’ in blood

Several differences

Not variable

One amino acid different

Not variable

Same variability as chimpanzees

Identical

Same variability

Note. This table was presented as part of the chimp/human exhibit. It prompts visitors to consider which of the two species (chimpanzees or gorillas) are human’s closest relative. It provides evidence that scientists use to determine the relationship between species. Directly below this table reads, “*Note. Because this characteristic is shared by other primates, it cannot tell us anything about the relationship between human beings, chimpanzees and gorillas.”

Table 2Coding Scheme: Evolutionary related talk codesCode Operational Definition ExampleRelation/relatives Talk of how different species “So look, that’s saying our

17

are related closest living relatives are either chimpanzees or gorillas, right.”

Function Talk of function of certain attributes

“… hard wearing teeth so they can chew through the grass.”

Features When families describe features specific to a species

“Look, it has stripes!”

Between-species comparison

Making between species comparisons

“Chimpanzees have legs shorter than arms, humans have arms shorter than legs”

Variation When families talk about differences within the same species

“Males have horns, females don’t.”

Naming When families named the different species at the exhibit without making further reference to their classification

“That’s a gorilla, that’s a chimpanzee, and that’s a white-handed gibbon!”

Classification Explicitly naming the classification of species

“There are the great apes…”

Evolution terms The use of terms such as adapt, change, evolve, etc.

“Over time, we evolved from these … to these …”

Time Reference to time in the process of species change

“So this is what we were like, so when we, over time, over time we’ve changed and evolved from being like these guys into …”

Teleology Imply that feature are a certain way for a specific purpose

“He’s got long arms for climbing tress”

Intention Talk that suggests that animals act in an intentional way

“He’s climbing up the tree to get the nice fresh green leaves…”

Explanations When two ideas are connected either using the word because or when two ideas are placed next to each other and the relationship is implied

“Because they walk around, they can walk on two legs as well if they wanted to.”

Prior knowledge Using other knowledge not available at the exhibit to describe exhibit

“… humans have 32 teeth, I think …”

Table 3Means of Adult Talk Codes by Exhibit

Name Features Compare Relatives Function VariationHumans 3.41a (3.79) 2.33a (5.10) 1.30a (2.43) .48a (.89) .15a (.46) .07a (.27)Artiodactyls .92b (1.96) 1.04a (2.03) .44a (1.04) 0b (0) .44a (.92) .84a (2.07)

18

Note. Standard deviations in parenthesis. This table displays the tabulated means of adults’ evolution-related talk codes by exhibit. For column values marked with subscripts, means that do not share subscripts are significantly different from each other at p = .002.Table 4Overall Means of Adult’s and Children’s Evolutionary Talk Codes

Name* Features* Compare* Relatives Function Variation*Parents 2.21a (3.27) 1.71a (3.95) .88a (1.93) .25a (.68) .29a (.72) .44a (1.49)Children .98b (2.25) .48b (.98) .12b (.38) .06a (.31) 0a (0) .25a (.80)

Note. Standard deviations in parenthesis. This table displays the overall means of adults and children’s evolution-related talk codes. For column values marked with subscripts, means that do not share subscripts are significantly at p = .05 level. Codes marked with * indicate correlation between parents’ and children’s use of such codes.