**3. Results**

**2.3. Data analysis**

348 Selected Studies in Biodiversity

between treatment groups.

ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test and partial *η<sup>2</sup>*

**Figure 2.** Positive pictograms used in the experiment.

**Figure 3.** Negative pictograms used in the experiment.

**Figure 4.** Comic strip used in the experiment (translation form Slovene).

Data entry and analysis were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics). Basic descriptive statistics of numerical variables (mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage) was employed. The inferential statistical methods used were

was calculated for exploring the relationship

#### **3.1. Students' perception of protected areas**

Students were asked to define a protected area in nature. As presented in **Table 1**, 36.8% of students provided a satisfactory definition of a protected area (category D) that was in line with the definition of the IUCN [16]. Any answer that showed a student's understanding that protected areas are primarily established for nature conservation, plant and animal protection or similar were considered correct. The remaining students mostly only partially defined a protected area; by giving correct examples of protected areas (category C-14.4%) or focusing on rules, describing prohibited and allowed (recommended) human behaviours in protected areas (category B-30.2%). An 18.7% of students responded incorrectly (category A).

#### **3.2. Acceptable behaviours in a protected area**

**Figure 5** presents how many, on average, acceptable human behaviours in protected areas students named in each group according to school year and gender. The treatment group faced with a set of positive pictograms named the highest number of acceptable human behaviours and the group faced with a set of negative pictograms named the lowest number. A three-way between subjects ANOVA showed that the main effects for school year and for all interactions were not significant. The main effect for this group was significant, *F* (2, 326) = 16.769, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was medium, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.093. A post hoc Tukey test showed that, with alpha at 0.05, the means for the positive pictograms and negative pictograms, for the positive pictograms and comic strip, and for the negative pictograms and comic strip were significant. Acceptable behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for the positive pictograms, negative pictograms, and comic strip were 4.21 (1.21), 3.09 (1.41), and 3.72 (1.74), respectively (**Figure 5**). The main effect for gender was significant, too, *F* (1, 326) = 14.476, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was small, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.043. Acceptable behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for males and females were 3.40 (1.50) and 3.97 (1.52), respectively.


**Table 1.** Categorization of students' responses to the question asking them to define a protected area in nature.

**Figure 5.** Means for the number of named acceptable human behaviours in protected areas for each treatment group according to school year, gender and in total.

comic strip, and for the negative pictograms and comic strip were significant. Unacceptable human behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for the positive pictograms, negative pictograms, and strip were 3.41 (1.56), 5.48 (1.21), and 3.96 (1.73), respectively (**Figure 2**). The main effect for school year was significant, too, *F* (1, 326) = 13.436, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was small, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.039. Unacceptable behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for

**Figure 6.** Means for the number of named unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas for each treatment group

Positive Rules Can Lead to Positive Behaviours: Students' Perceptions of Messages…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71602

351

The ratio between the average number of named acceptable and unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas was calculated for each treatment group (**Table 2**). Of the total number of acceptable human behaviours, the number of negative human behaviours was subtracted. As it is evident from **Table 2**, the maximum difference in the number of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours was detected in the group faced with a set of negative pictograms. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between all three

fourth and fifth grade were 5.25 (1.30) and 5.68 (1.08), respectively.

according to school year, gender and in total.

#### **3.3. Unacceptable behaviours in a protected area**

**Figure 6** presents how many, on average, unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas students named in each treatment group according to school year and gender. On the contrary to results presented for acceptable human behaviours in protected area, the group faced with a set of negative pictograms named the highest number of unacceptable human behaviours and the group faced with a set of positive pictograms named the lowest number. A three-way between subjects ANOVA showed that the main effects for gender and for all interaction were not significant. The main effect for this group was significant, *F* (2, 326) = 59.887, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was medium, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.263. A post hoc Tukey test showed that, with alpha at 0.05, the means for the positive pictograms and negative pictograms, for the positive pictograms and Positive Rules Can Lead to Positive Behaviours: Students' Perceptions of Messages… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71602 351

**Figure 6.** Means for the number of named unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas for each treatment group according to school year, gender and in total.

comic strip, and for the negative pictograms and comic strip were significant. Unacceptable human behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for the positive pictograms, negative pictograms, and strip were 3.41 (1.56), 5.48 (1.21), and 3.96 (1.73), respectively (**Figure 2**). The main effect for school year was significant, too, *F* (1, 326) = 13.436, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was small, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.039. Unacceptable behaviours score means (and standard deviations) for fourth and fifth grade were 5.25 (1.30) and 5.68 (1.08), respectively.

**3.3. Unacceptable behaviours in a protected area**

according to school year, gender and in total.

350 Selected Studies in Biodiversity

**Figure 6** presents how many, on average, unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas students named in each treatment group according to school year and gender. On the contrary to results presented for acceptable human behaviours in protected area, the group faced with a set of negative pictograms named the highest number of unacceptable human behaviours and the group faced with a set of positive pictograms named the lowest number. A three-way between subjects ANOVA showed that the main effects for gender and for all interaction were not significant. The main effect for this group was significant, *F* (2, 326) = 59.887, *p* < 0.001. The effect size was medium, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.263. A post hoc Tukey test showed that, with alpha at 0.05, the means for the positive pictograms and negative pictograms, for the positive pictograms and

**Figure 5.** Means for the number of named acceptable human behaviours in protected areas for each treatment group

The ratio between the average number of named acceptable and unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas was calculated for each treatment group (**Table 2**). Of the total number of acceptable human behaviours, the number of negative human behaviours was subtracted. As it is evident from **Table 2**, the maximum difference in the number of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours was detected in the group faced with a set of negative pictograms. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between all three


park. These findings confirm that rules visualized with pictograms, which communicate to students expected behaviours instead of prohibitions, influence positively on students' perception of behaviours and actions in the park. These findings are in line with PBIS framework and results of experimental studies, like Hardman and Smith [31] and Kostewicz et al. [32], that focused on positively designed school rules, which influenced positively on students'

Positive Rules Can Lead to Positive Behaviours: Students' Perceptions of Messages…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71602

353

To conclude, findings show that the design of information boards with pictograms or comic strips can greatly influence how a primary school student perceives a particular protected area, which is something park managers need to keep in mind when designing the information boards or in personal communication to visitors. Our next research will focus on young

[1] Jacobson SK, McDuff MD, Monroe MC. Conservation Education and Outreach Techni-

[3] Zakon o ohranjanju narave [The Nature Conservation Act]. Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 96/04 – Official consolidated text, 61/06 – SA-1, 8/10 – ZSKZ-B and 46/14. 2004. Available from: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO1600 [Accessed: Feb 17, 2017]

[4] Pravilnik o označevanju zavarovanih območij naravnih vrednot [Rules on the designation of protected areas of natural values] 2002. Available from: Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 117/02 and 53/05. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV4370

[5] Tijus C, Barcenilla J, De Lavalette BC, Meunier JG. The design, understanding and usage

[6] Waterson P, Pilcher C, Evans S, Moore J. Developing safety signs for children on boars

[7] Spinillo CG. Graphic and cultural aspects of pictograms: An information ergonomics

adults to test if they perceive the issues similarly to children.

\*Address all correspondence to: gregor.torkar@pef.uni-lj.si

1 Faculty of Education University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

2 Primary School Vide Pregarc, Ljubljana, Slovenia

and Janez Jerman1

ques. Združene države Amerike: Oxford University Press; 2007

[2] Sarapik V. Semiotics at the crossroads of art. Semiotica. 2013;**2013**(195):69-95

\*, Saša Mezek2

[Accessed: Feb 17, 2017]

of pictograms. Studies in Writing. 2007;**21**:17

trains. Applied Ergonomics. 2011;**43**(1):254-265

viewpoint. Work. 2012;**41**:3398-3403

school behaviour.

**Author details**

Gregor Torkar1

**References**

**Table 2.** Means and standard deviation for the ratio between the number of named acceptable and unacceptable human behaviours in protected areas by treatment groups.

treatment groups of students, *F* (2, 1279) = 6.15, *p* = 0.002 and *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.010. Post hoc analyses using Tukey test indicated a large difference between treatment groups faced with a set of positive and negative pictograms (p < 0.001, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.451), a medium difference between groups faced with a set of positive pictograms and comic strip (p < 0.001, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.084), and a large difference between groups faced with a set of negative pictograms and comic strip (p < 0.001, *η<sup>2</sup>* = 0.272).
