The first display I observed was the “Forest Elephants and the Saline” display in the Rainforest section of the Hall of Biodiversity. This display appeared to give a general idea of how elephants served as a keystone species in the rainforest. This part of the exhibition contained information regarding specific species of rainforest elephants such as their relative body and population sizes. The display did not appear to try to persuade any specific opinions, but rather tried to give a broad overview of this topic.

The second display I observed was the “Introduced Species” and “Laws and Regulations” display in the Resource Center. This section of the exhibition put more effort into convincing the museum patrons to act a specific way. To bring attention to issues caused by humans’ interaction with nature (such as creation of endangered species, introduction of nonnative species, and subsequent disruption of ecosystems), this presentation showed a series of plaques that attempted to educate the readership. The language compelled readers to behave in a way that would not cause further damage to the biodiversity of the earth. The vocabulary placed a larger responsibility on the readers to act in an environmentally sound way and to even go beyond monitoring individual behaviors: “citizen action,” “humanity’s spread,” “disruption.” The panel also showed off a large quote stating, “the job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open,” as a direct call to action.

In the Forest Elephants exhibit, viewers tended to read the plaque descriptions briefly before looking at the plant and animal recreations behind the separation bars. Some of the viewers who stood near the built-in books would flip through some of the pages and skim the pages before leaving. Others standing near the video player would watch the video for a few seconds before promptly leaving. Commentary from the visitors also proved that they did not learn very much from the display. Much of the conversation about the display was either a direct observation of what was in the display: “Look, elephants!” “I think I saw a fish.” Other conversations were entirely irrelevant to the contents of the exhibit: “Where did she come from?” “Ahahaha; that happened to us.”

Visitors interacted with the Introduced Species display  in more meaningful ways than with that of the Forest Elephants. As there were small computer-like devices built into the display, patrons spent more time at this display and also had more deliberate interactions with the display. Some museum-goers stopped to press buttons on the electronic device. Others would pause to read the descriptions on the wall while their fellow museum-goer looked at the information on the electronic screens. This may be due to multiple factors.

For one thing, the two atmospheres differed greatly. In the Forest Elephants exhibit, the lighting was very dim; in fact, it was so dark I could not even really see the writing on my notebook. There was enough light to read the description plaques, but not enough to see very far into the actual artwork of the display–especially if your eyesight is not the best. In stark contrast, the Introduced Species exhibit was very well-lit. The display was either placed on electronic screens with bright backgrounds or on light-colored non-electronic backing with highly contrasting font colors. Though I very much enjoyed the laid-back atmosphere in the Forest Elephants exhibit, it was less enticing to read through all the material and look for particular animals in  the display when the lighting was so dim. It was much easier to examine the display in Introduced Species.

The content also made a difference. In Forest Elephants, one was provided only with relatively non-opinionated data. There was no real argument being made–or at least not one that was easily interpreted. A clear argument, however, was presented in the Introduced Species display. The creator(s) chose a position and supported it with data that could be potentially very emotionally compelling–depending on how involved with this issue the viewership is.

Though more interactive displays are not always a better solution, I would say that having an interactive element added to the elephants display would help a lot. Increasing the amount of light a little bit would probably also help. The viewers who did stop to examine the displays did so mostly when there was something that required direct participation, not just observation. One thing that I did like very much was that the video in the elephant display had clear audio that was loud enough to hear when at the display but not so loud that it would disturb viewers at a nearby display.

The Hall of Biodiversity had a plaque in the center where it was not well lit.

It was a large paragraph that eloquently explained the concepts of biodiversity and protection of biodiversity. However, it would probably have served its purpose in conveying the conservation message if it was placed in an area where more people would read it–perhaps somewhere near the entrance of the hall. Overall, however, the Hall of Biodiversity is effective in educating the public. I liked the fact that the environment could be relaxed but simultaneously educational. There was no need for overly didactic chair-lecture-board methods for patrons to learn about the different species on this earth and the different ways that they could help save what biodiversity remains.

I really hope that people who go to this hall learn about the biodiversity message. I hope they take this lesson to heart, because as my fellow classmates and I were leaving, we overheard one visitor loudly declare, “I don’t care about animals.”