Multimodal Learning Has an Impact on Conservation Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions Towards Spider Monkeys in Mayan Children From Punta Laguna, Yucatán

ABSTRACT

Conservation education activities employing multimodal knowledge transmission, including art‐based workshops, are a multidisciplinary tool that can be used to raise awareness of the natural environment in which we live. In this study, we implemented a conservation education workshop that combined different forms of knowledge transmission, to promote pro‐environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards spider monkeys and their ecosystem, among 5‐ to 16‐year‐old students in a rural school in a Mayan community in Mexico (N = 27). The aim of the study was to (i) develop and implement a workshop tailored to the cultural context of Maya children in México, incorporating artistic activities and multimodal learning approaches, and (ii) evaluate its effectiveness by monitoring changes in participants' knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards spider monkeys and their ecosystem. Our findings indicate overall increases in conservation‐oriented knowledge and behavioral intentions following the workshop, with more pronounced gains in knowledge among girls and in behavioral intentions among older children. Attitudes toward spider monkeys were already high before the intervention and showed a small but statistically significant increase afterward. Children's drawings reflected increased references to morphological and ecological traits, although aspects related to social behavior and human‐monkey interactions were less represented. These outcomes suggest that short‐term, culturally embedded and multimodal educational interventions may promote conservation learning in rural communities, though some effects may be constrained by ceiling effects and topic complexity. Future research should explore the durability of these changes over time, the specific drivers of pre‐existing pro‐environmental attitudes, and the impact of prior familiarity and cultural context on learning outcomes.

Summary

• After participating in a conservation education workshop that included artistic activities and diverse learning approaches, children from a rural Mayan community in Mexico showed significant advancements in their comprehension, attitudes, and behavioral intentions concerning spider monkeys and their ecosystem.

• Knowledge increased more in females than males, behavioral intentions improved more in older than younger children, and knowledge especially increased with regard to spider monkey morphology and ecology.

1. Introduction

Conservation education promotes interdisciplinary understanding of the natural environment by integrating the sciences, arts, and humanities (Jacobson et al. 2007). Such holistic approach can help foster greater awareness and appreciation of biodiversity, which are important for motivating individual and collective action in support of conservation efforts, particularly in communities that depend directly on local ecosystems for their livelihoods and cultural identity (Monroe 2003; Sauve 2005). To guide learning processes, educational frameworks like Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom 1956) outline a hierarchy of cognitive skills, progressing from basic knowledge acquisition to complex abilities such as analysis, evaluation, and creative synthesis (Dresner et al. 2014; Krathwohl 2002; Rule and Lord 2003). In recent years, multimodal educational approaches—integrating multiple forms of expression and experience—have gained traction for their ability to address diverse learning styles (Lotherington and Paige 2017). These methods include direct instruction, field‐based experiences, group activities, gamification, and artistic expressions such as drawing, storytelling, or performance, which are considered here as one type of multimodal strategy (Patrick et al. 2007).

Artistic activities support emotional engagement and creativity (Breuer et al. 2017; Franquesa‐Soler et al. 2020; Franquesa‐Soler and Serio‐Silva 2017; Turkka et al. 2017). The value of these methods has been documented in a range of disciplines, from primary education to biology and engineering (Gill 2008; Quillin and Thomas 2015; Qvarnström 2019; Wu et al. 2020). Additionally, they may help overcome linguistic barriers associated with conventional verbal approaches, such as surveys or questionnaires, especially in local and Indigenous communities (Bezanson et al. 2023; Franquesa‐Soler et al. 2023). However, the role of multimodal strategies in conservation education remains underexplored, especially when it comes to assessing learning outcomes (Kuhar et al. 2010). More research is therefore needed to understand how they foster pro‐environmental knowledge, skills, dispositions, and behaviors (Schilbert and Scheersoi 2023). Recent studies indicate that integrating artistic practices can stimulate creativity and improve outcomes, such as increased knowledge retention (cognitive), stronger emotional bonds with the content (affective), and more active student participation (Ardoin et al. 2020; Masi 2021), which aligns with Bloom's taxonomy. In primate conservation education, specifically, multimodal approaches can enhance affective, cognitive, and social dimensions, fostering empathy and emotional engagement (Pekrun and Linnenbrink‐Garcia 2012), critical thinking and problem‐solving (Eisner 2002), collaborative learning and communication (Johnson and Johnson 1999; Vygotsky 1978). Activities like storytelling or mural creation also reinforce cultural identity and deepen emotional connections to wildlife (Chawla 2007), which supports conservation‐oriented behaviors (Chawla and Derr 2012; Schultz and Kaiser 2012). Altogether, by integrating multimodal strategies, conservation education can become more comprehensive and culturally resonant to biodiversity protection (Kals and Müller 2012). This prepares participants to support and actively engage in conservation, contributing to the protection of nonhuman primates and their ecosystems for future generations. Furthermore, collaborating with Indigenous and local communities is especially crucial in areas where threatened species reside (Hoare et al. 2022). These communities hold valuable traditional knowledge and cultural practices that can contribute to the success of conservation programs (Reyes‐Garcia et al. 2013). For instance, traditional ecological knowledge offers insights often overlooked by conventional science (Gadgil et al. 1993), and involving local communities fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility, essential for long‐term success of conservation initiatives (Milich et al. 2021; Pretty 2003).

In this study, we designed and evaluated a multimodal conservation education workshop aimed at promoting knowledge, attitudes, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions towards spider monkeys and their ecosystem among students from a rural school in Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, México. This species of spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), currently listed as Endangered (Cortés‐Ortíz et al. 2021), is among the 25 most endangered nonhuman primates (Méndez‐Carvajal et al. 2022). Primary threats include forest loss, habitat fragmentation, illegal trafficking, and hunting (Ramos‐Fernández and Wallace 2008). Like other nonhuman primates (Andresen et al. 2018; Fuzessy et al. 2017), they play a key role in forest regeneration as seed dispersers (Chaves et al. 2011; Link and Di Fiore 2006), and hold cultural significance for local communities (Bruner and Cucina 2005; Pinto‐Marroquin et al. 2021). Considering the endangered status and the ecological and cultural importance of spider monkeys, conservation strategies include the establishment of protected areas (García‐Frapolli et al. 2009), economic incentives like ecotourism (Johnson et al. 2023), and conservation education (Porter‐Bolland et al. 2013). These programs often engage local communities and are adapted to their economic, ecological, and sociocultural contexts (Barahona and Almeida 2005; Estrada et al. 2022; Padua 2010).

We collaborated with the school in Punta Laguna (Yucatán, México), a community significant for its location and Indigenous cultural heritage. Punta Laguna lies within the Otoch Ma'ax Yetel Kooh protected area, established in 2002 through a community‐led initiative (García‐Frapolli et al. 2009). Its location is strategic for protecting species like spider monkeys and black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Many families derive their income from ecotourism activities, which include the observation of spider monkeys in the reserve. Although most families in the area also cultivate crops, crop raiding is uncommon in the area. The community thus maintains close proximity to spider monkeys and depends on the natural resources, making their knowledge and attitudes about the species and its ecosystem critical (García‐Frapolli et al. 2013). Most community members (less than 200 residents) speak Yucatec Maya and Spanish, although some families preferentially speak Maya at home (García‐Frapolli et al. 2013). At school, classes are conducted in Spanish by teachers from other communities, most of whom are not fluent in Maya. In contrast to Western “direct active teaching” (Gaskins and Paradise 2010; Hewlett et al. 2011; Lancy and Grove 2010; Paradise and Rogoff 2009), where knowledge sharing frequently follows a unidirectional pattern involving explicit or abstract verbal instructions, Mayan communities rely more on task‐based learning (Casillas et al. 2020; Maynard 2004; Shneidman and Goldin‐Meadow 2012). It is therefore essential to explore educational strategies that align with these cultural models and support rebuilding positive human‐wildlife relationships (Franquesa‐Soler et al. 2020).

To this aim, we implemented a conservation education workshop combining direct teaching, common in Mexican schools (Maynard 2004), with interactive, participatory multimodal activities, including art‐making, cooperative games, and excursions in the forest. These aimed to foster knowledge, attitudes, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions related to spider monkey conservation. These activities aimed to influence how participants perceive monkeys, what they understand about them, and how they envision their interactions with them (see: Pellier et al. 2014; Rakotomamonjy et al. 2015; Wright 2010). Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our point of view of what constitutes a conservation‐oriented attitude may differ from the perspectives of our interlocutors, other scientists, or conservationists (Browne‐Nuñez and Jonker 2008; Oh and Ditton 2008).

To assess the effectiveness of the educational program, we measured participants' attitudes, knowledge, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions before and after the workshop (Kuhar et al. 2010). In addition to questionnaires (i.e., Kuhar et al. 2010; Rakotomamonjy et al. 2015), we included group activities, drawings, and direct experiences in nature, which can help to evaluate the educational impacts (Rosquillas and Bardullas 2024; Silver 1993).

Given that the effectiveness of educational programs might vary by gender (Borchers et al. 2014; Franquesa‐Soler and Serio‐Silva 2017; Mulder et al. 2009; Silver 1993; Steinmayr and Spinath 2008) or age (Borchers et al. 2014; Kurtz‐Costes et al. 2014; Silver 1993), we examined whether these variables modulate changes. We predicted that, after attending the workshop, children would show more conservation‐oriented attitudes (e.g., greater empathy towards spider monkeys, reduced fear of spider monkeys), knowledge (e.g., understanding of spider monkey ecology, awareness of the importance of spider monkey conservation), and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions (e.g., willingness to participate in conservation activities, commitment to protecting spider monkey habitats), compared to their baseline levels (Prediction 1). Furthermore, we expected this change to be more pronounced in girls (Prediction 2) and older children (Prediction 3), as compared to boys and younger participants. This prediction was grounded in the general trend suggesting (i) that women tend to exhibit more pro‐environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., greater empathy towards wildlife, stronger support for conservation efforts) towards nature and the ecosystem than men [see (Echavarren 2023; Vicente‐Molina et al. 2013)] and might thus be more interested in conservation education workshops, and (ii) that older children might have better learning skills (e.g., higher retention of conservation knowledge, better ability to understand complex ecological concepts) compared to their younger counterparts (Borchers et al. 2014; Kurtz‐Costes et al. 2014; Silver 1993).

Importantly, Punta Laguna is not currently characterized by intense conflict between humans and spider monkeys. However, this relative harmony presents an opportunity to implement proactive conservation education strategies before potential tensions arise due to environmental changes or shifts in tourism dynamics. By targeting children, we aimed to strengthen the already positive relationship between the community and the species, and to promote long‐term stewardship across generations.

2. Methods

2.1. Ethics

This project received the ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Universitat de Girona (Project Code: CEBRU0006‐23). We obtained the permission to work in the Otoch Ma'ax Yetel Kooh protected area from the CONANP (Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas) and SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Permission to conduct this study was further obtained from the local teachers of CONAFE (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo) in Punta Laguna, situated in the northeastern region of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Upon the expressed interest of the children enrolled at the school, the teachers contacted their parents, and together with the second author (PV), they presented the general workshop's objectives and content. Parents who agreed with the participation of their children were requested to sign an informed consent form, thereby authorizing their children to engage in the activities. Children whose parents did not provide consent did not participate in the workshop and instead participated in the school's regular activities.

2.2. Study Community

We carried out the study in the Mayan community of Punta Laguna, during the final school term of 2023. Punta Laguna is a rural community with a rich Indigenous heritage. The local school operates as a part of a multi‐grade educational system (Schemelkes and Aguila 2019) and follows the ABCD pedagogical model (in Spanish, Aprendizaje Basado en la Colaboración y el Diálogo, meaning Learning Based on Collaboration and Dialogue). The ABCD model is designed to provide quality education to students encompassing various ages, levels of study, and life experiences. It aims to foster fundamental skills like reading and writing, as well as impart scientific and cultural knowledge while promoting learning through dialogue and collaboration, in accordance with cultural and universal values (CONAFE 2016). When the study was conducted, the school building comprised three classrooms: one for the pre‐school (ages 5–6), one for the primary students (ages 7–11), and a third for the secondary class students (ages 12–16). The facility also included a shared playground used by the entire village. The study involved 27 children, with 13 identifying themselves as girls and 14 as boys. At the time of data collection, 30 children were enrolled in the school. Three families declined to provide informed consent, and thus their children did not participate. Children's age ranged from 5 to 16 years, with an average (±SD) of 10.30 ± 3.34 years. Among them, two girls and two boys attended the preschool, eight girls and five boys were in the primary school, and three girls and seven boys the secondary school.

2.3. Data Collection

The study consisted of three sequential phases. In the first phase, before starting the workshop, we administered a questionnaire to all participants. The questionnaire consisted of 27 descriptive and multi‐choice questions that evaluated children's attitudes (9 questions), knowledge (10 questions), and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions (8 questions) towards spider monkeys and their ecosystem (see Supporting Information). The attitude‐related questions were designed to assess children's feelings and disposition towards monkeys. The knowledge‐related questions aimed to assess children's understanding of spider monkeys and their ecosystem, including aspects of the species morphology, ecology, and social behavior. Finally, we designed questions about behavioral intentions to identify the specific actions children intended to undertake related to the conservation of monkeys and their ecosystems. We administered the questionnaire individually, which took approximately 15–20 min per participant. To ensure the children's comprehension, both questions and answers were produced verbally in Spanish.

In the second phase, we conducted the conservation workshop, which included four main activities spanning a week (Table 1). These activities combined direct active teaching (i.e., a “Canva” presentation) along with more interactive learning approaches (i.e., cooperative games, forest excursions, and collaborative painting). For a full description of the activities, see Table 1. To summarize, the first activity consisted of a “Canva” presentation that introduced spider monkeys and provided children with information about their physical characteristics, ecological role, social behaviors, and relationship to humans. The second activity involved engaging in three cooperative games using body language to teach children about various aspects of spider monkey morphology (e.g., the importance of their tail, body movements) and social behaviors (e.g., vocal repertoire). The third activity consisted of an excursion into the forest within the Otoch Ma'ax Yetel Kooh protected area. During the excursion, participants searched for spider monkeys in the forest and engaged in on‐site discussions about different aspects of the species, including their morphology (e.g., how to distinguish between sexes and ages), ecology (e.g., how to identify the trees they feed on and what is their role as seed dispersers), social behavior (e.g., which types of vocalizations they use), and relationship to humans (e.g., the effect of anthropogenic objects in the forest). The excursion was attended by all the children whose parents had granted informed consent, along with three teachers and the second author (PV). The fourth activity involved collaborative painting a poster to visually consolidate the information acquired during the workshop about spider monkeys (Figure 1). In this activity, we created a learning environment where children could share knowledge through verbal exchanges and joint discussions to determine which elements to include in the final version of the poster. This collaborative process allowed the children to actively participate in the creation of the poster and reinforce the educational content acquired during the workshop.

Table 1.

Description of the activities carried out during the workshop, including the material used.

Activity	Description	Material	Learning objectives	Learning outcomes	Relation to pre and post test
Presentation about spider monkeys	Introduction about spider monkeys: we listened to a children's story about spider monkeys (called “Monkey Puzzle”) from the “YouTube” platform and then showed them a slideshow (created on the “Canva” platform) about the morphology, ecology, sociality and ecological importance of spider monkeys, and their relation to humans.	”Canva” presentation; “YouTube” platform; laptop projector Time: 50–60 min	Understand the morphology, ecology, sociality, and ecological importance of spider monkeys. Relate spider monkeys to human interactions and conservation efforts.	Cognitive: Enhanced knowledge of spider monkeys' biology and ecology. Affective: Increased empathy and positive attitudes towards spider monkeys.	Assessed changes in knowledge (Questionnaire questions K1–K10) and attitudes (questions A1–A9) through a presentation on spider monkeys' biology, ecology, and human interactions.
Game 1: Catch the monkey's tail	We formed four mixed teams (gender and age). In each team: one participant carried the tail (i.e., colored ribbon), one tried to steal the tail from the other teams, and the rest of the team had to protect the partner with the tail. The game ended when one team caught all the tails.	Colored ribbons; scissors Time: 15–20 min	Reinforce knowledge about spider monkeys through playful association. Develop an appreciation for spider monkey behavior and social dynamics.	Cognitive: Better understanding of tail function and locomotion. Affective: Greater appreciation for spider monkeys' social behavior.	Evaluated knowledge (questions K1, K10), attitudes (questions A5, A8, A9) and behavioral intentions (question B3) related to spider monkey social behavior and empathy through a team‐based physical game.
Game 2: Where is my vocalization partner?	Before the game started, we recalled four of the main vocalizations used by spider monkeys, and their function (whinny, groan, bark, oak‐oak). We then blindfolded all the children with a handkerchief and whispered one vocalization in each child's ear, without the other classmates hearing it. The game consisted in performing the vocalization out loud to find the partners performing the same vocalization. The game ended when all children found all members of the group with the same vocalization.	Handkerchiefs Time: 15–20 min	Identify and differentiate spider monkey vocalizations and their functions. Foster collaboration and auditory attention.	Cognitive: Enhanced recognition of spider monkey vocalizations. Affective: Increased interest in spider monkey communication.	Assessed knowledge (questions K8, K9), attitudes (question A3), and behavioral preferences (question B3) concerning natural monkey communication.
Game 3: How do monkeys move?	The game consisted of moving like a monkey to the rhythm of commercial music, and then standing frozen when the music stopped. The game ended when only one partner was left without having ever moved when the music stopped.	Loudspeakers; mobile with commercial music Time: 15–20 min	Understand spider monkey locomotion and body adaptations. Encourage embodied learning through movement.	Cognitive: Improved understanding of arboreal adaptations. Affective: Increased enjoyment and curiosity about movement styles.	Measured knowledge (questions K1, K10), attitudes (questions A4, A6), and behavioral intentions (question B3) through embodied learning about spider monkey locomotion and adaptation.
Today, I am a primatologist!	We organized an excursion in the rainforest to reinforce the knowledge acquired in the previous activities, through direct experience with the spider monkeys. First, the objective was to find the group of spider monkeys, and then to discuss aspects of their morphology, diet and sociability within the group. In addition, a way to observe in situ their main distribution area and their role in the rainforest, as seed dispersers. We also learned to use binoculars to better observe the monkeys and some recommendations for getting around the rainforest paths, such as not making noise, not leaving the path and not touching any plants or animals.	Binoculars Time: 50–60 min	Apply classroom knowledge to field observation of spider monkeys. Gain insight into spider monkey behavior, ecology and conservation in their natural habitat. Practice basic observation techniques with binoculars and responsible forest behavior.	Cognitive: Enhanced understanding of spider monkey behavior and conservation in their natural habitat. Affective: Increased appreciation for the importance of conservation.	Integrated assessment of knowledge (questions K2, K4–K7, K10), attitudes (questions A1–A9), and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions (questions B1–B7) through direct observation and forest immersion.
Poster	Together, the children created a large poster representing spider monkeys (Figure 1). First, they assembled cardboard pieces to outline a tree silhouette and decorated it with green paper leaves. They added a colorful title using cut‐out letters. For the foreground, they drew monkey faces and printed copies, then used a mud‐and‐water mix to paint monkey bodies with their hands. After completing the poster, each group of children explained the elements they had created and discussed what they had learned about spider monkey anatomy, behavior, and ecological roles. This final step encouraged reflection and verbal integration of the key concepts covered during the workshop.	White and green paper; white cardboard; colored pencils; mud and water; glue Time: 50–60 min	Consolidate understanding of spider monkey anatomy, behavior, and ecological roles through visual representation. Enhance creativity and artistic expression. Reinforce understanding of spider monkey anatomy and characteristics through graphic representation.	Cognitive: Reinforced understanding of spider monkey anatomy and characteristics through graphic representation. Affective: Enhanced creativity, self‐expression and artistic skills.	Assessed knowledge consolidation (questions K1–K10), attitudes (questions A1–A9), and environmental behavioral intentions (questions B3, B6–B8) through creative expression and participant explanation of learned content.

Figure 1.

The poster is the output of the last activity of our conservation project, in which we represented all the children participating in the workshop as spider monkeys.

In the third and final phase of the study, we administered the same questionnaire that we had used before the workshop to all participants. The comparative analysis of these two sets of questionnaires enabled us to assess whether participants' attitudes, knowledge, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions towards spider monkeys changed following the conservation workshop.

Before and during the intervention, we organized a series of meetings with the teachers at the local school. Before the intervention, we introduced them to the project, sought their input and obtained consent for the workshop. These meetings were instrumental in planning logistics, including determining the locations and scheduling for each activity, identifying required materials and coordinating the workshop with regular classes. Following the intervention, we conducted a satisfaction survey consisting of 6 questions to receive children's evaluation of the activities conducted during the workshop. Finally, approximately 2 weeks after the intervention, we distributed a three‐question survey to the families of participating children. The aim of the survey was to qualitatively assess whether children had reported about the workshop content and activities, which might suggest verbal transfer of knowledge within the community.

2.4. Assessment of the Workshop

To evaluate the effect of the workshop, we measured changes in participants' attitudes, knowledge, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions postintervention, by using questionnaires and drawings. Scores were operationalized as proportions (i.e., the sum of points obtained for each question, out of the total points they would have obtained if having completely positive attitudes and behavioral intentions, and exhaustive knowledge). Consequently, the scores ranged between 0 and 1, with 1 indicating completely positive attitudes and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions, and exhaustive knowledge about spider monkeys and their ecosystem.

To collect drawings, we provided children with 12 different colored pencils and a sheet of Din A4 paper featuring the outline of a spider monkey (Figure 2). We encouraged children to complete the drawing individually, based on what they had learned about spider monkeys during the workshop. The drawings were created in a single session lasting 40–50 min, and the evaluation relied on content item analysis (Rose 2016; see below for more details), which involves systematically examining the specific elements and themes present in the drawings to assess the children's understanding and retention of the workshop material. We evaluated the drawings by examining the presence or absence of 10 elements categorized into four distinct groups: (i) morphology (e.g., coat color was painted dark brown or black, face/belly were painted with light colors); (ii) ecology (e.g., inclusion of arboreal features, forest vegetation and/or other components of the forest landscape, and of natural food sources for the monkeys); (iii) sociality (e.g., inclusion of other spider monkeys and/or other forest‐dwelling animals); and (iv) human‐monkey relationship (e.g., omission of highly anthropogenic elements and human activities not characteristic of the spider monkey natural habitat). The criteria for correctness were established by the researchers based on current scientific understanding and conservation perspectives regarding spider monkeys and their habitats. For each of the four categories, we assigned a score from 0 to 1. The score was determined by calculating the proportion of correctly included elements, according to the established criteria, out of the maximum number of correct elements that could be present in the drawing.

Figure 2.

(A) Template with spider monkey silhouette, which was used to assess children's knowledge about spider monkeys. (B) One of the drawings produced by a participant of the conservation workshop.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

We used two datasets to run generalized linear mixed models in R (R Core Team 2020), with the glmmTMB package (Brooks et al. 2017). In the first data set, we entered two lines for each participant: one containing the scores from the questionnaire administered before the workshop, and another with the scores of the questionnaire administered after the workshop. We used the data set to run three models, with the following dependent variables: children's attitudes (Model 1), knowledge (Model 2), and behavioral intentions (Model 3). In all models, we included as test predictor the two 2‐way interactions between testing phase (i.e., before/after the workshop) and child's age, and between testing phase and child's gender, including child identity as random factor. In cases where children left one or more items unanswered within a section of the questionnaire, the score was calculated as a percentage based only on the number of answered items. For example, if a participant responded to 4 out of 5 items and obtained 3 correct or positive answers, their score was computed as 3/4 = 75%. This approach allowed us to reflect the proportion of successful responses relative to the questions answered, rather than penalizing missing data.

In the second data set, we entered four lines for each participant (i.e., one for the score obtained in each of the four topics assessed in the drawing evaluation: morphology, ecology, sociality, and human‐monkey relationship). We used the data set to run a last model (Model 4), in which the dependent variable was the score obtained during the drawing evaluation. As test predictors, we included the two 2‐way interactions between topic and child's age, and between topic and child's gender, including child identity as random factor. In all the models, we included subject identity as a random factor to account for individual differences in baseline performance and to account for the fact that our observations were not independent, since each subject was tested under both conditions (i.e., pre and post).

Given that the response variables were proportions bounded between 0 and 1, we fitted the models using a beta error distribution (family = “beta_family”), and applied the transformation proposed by Smithson and Verkuilen (2006) to accommodate values at the boundaries. This approach allowed us to better capture the distributional properties of the response variables and justified the use of GLMMs over standard linear models.

We compared the full models to corresponding null models that were identical but did not include test predictors (Dobson and Barnett 2018). Upon detecting significant differences, we used the drop1 function to assess the significance of the single test predictors. The drop1 function works by systematically dropping each predictor (one at a time) from the full model and comparing the reduced model to the original one. Two‐way interactions also included the terms of the interaction as main terms. If the interaction was not significant, we re‐ran the model only including the main terms. If the interaction was significant, the drop1 function provided one single p value for the interaction and its main effects, following the principle of marginality, according to which the main effects should not be tested independently when a significant interaction is present, as their effects depend on each other. For categorical predictors with more than two levels (i.e., topic) the drop1 function tested their overall significance by also providing one single p‐value. In case of significance, we then used the emmeans package (Lenth et al. 2022) with Tukey method corrections to conduct post‐hoc tests and compare the single levels of the categorical predictor. Finally, we checked model assumptions with the Dharma package (Hartig 2022). The residual distribution revealed some minor problems in Models 3 and 4, but convergence, overdispersion and multicollinearity were not an issue for any of the models presented (maximum variance inflation factors across models = 1.11; Miles 2005).

3. Results

3.1. Response Rate to Specific Questions

Before analyzing the overall results, it is important to highlight that, although all children answered most of the questions, certain questions received fewer responses. These questions may offer insight into areas that could be improved in future workshops. The questions with the lowest response rates were as follows:

• Question K3: Why are they called spider monkeys? (no response from 2 children, 7.4%),

• Question K6: Which is the importance of spider monkeys in the ecosystem? (no response from 7 children, 25.9%),

• Question K8: Of the following vocalizations, could you tell me which one is produced by spider monkeys? (no response from 11 children, 40.7%),

• Question K9: Of the following vocalizations, can you match the type of vocalization to its meaning? (no response from 20 children, 74.1%),

• Question K10: Now there are some sentences about the life history of spider monkeys, could you tell me which one is NOT correct? (no response from 16 children, 59.3%).

3.2. Overall Results

Before the workshop, the average (±SD) score for children's attitudes towards spider monkeys was 0.80 ± 0.13, and after the workshop it was 0.84 ± 0.14. In Model 1, the full model significantly differed from the null model (GLMM, χ ² = 24.25, df = 5, p < 0.001 Table 2), with testing phase (p = 0.024), and child's age (p < 0.001) both having a significant effect as main terms. In particular, children scored higher in the attitude section of the questionnaire after the workshop compared to before, and older children, in general, scored higher than younger ones.

Table 2.

Results of the four full models run, with estimates, standard errors (SE), confidence intervals (CIs) and p values for test predictors (reference category in parentheses, significant values for test predictors marked with an asterisk).

MODELS	Estimate	SE	2.5% to 97.5% CI	p
Model 1: Attitude to spider monkeys
Intercept	1.64	0.18	1.30 to 1.99	—
Testing phase (pre)	−0.40	0.18	−0.75 to −0.06	0.024*
Child's gender (male)	0.27	0.21	−0.15 to 0.68	0.208
Child's age	0.51	0.11	0.29 to 0.72	< 0.001*
Model 2: Knowledge about spider monkeys
Intercept	2.24	0.23	1.80 to 2.68	—
Testing phase (pre) * Child's gender (male)	1.04	0.31	0.42 to 1.65	0.002*
Testing phase (pre)	−1.88	0.23	−2.33 to −1.43
Child's gender (male)	−0.58	0.30	−1.17 to 0.01
Child's age	0.75	0.12	0.51 to 0.99	< 0.001*
Model 3: Behavioral intentions toward spider monkeys
Intercept	0.13	0.15	−0.15 to 0.42	—
Testing phase (pre) * Child's age	−0.24	0.10	−0.44 to −0.03	0.029*
Testing phase (pre)	−0.45	0.10	−0.65 to −0.25
Child's age	0.45	0.11	0.23 to 0.66
Child's gender (male)	−0.08	0.19	−0.46 to 0.29	0.663
Model 4: Specific knowledge acquired
Intercept	0.76	0.27	0.23 to 1.28	—
Topic (morphology)	0.70	0.32	0.06 to 1.33	< 0.001*
Topic (relationship to humans)	−2.18	0.36	−2.89 to −1.47
Topic (sociality)	−1.62	0.35	−2.31 to −0.94
Child's gender (male)	−0.27	0.24	−0.73 to 0.20	0.261
Child's age	0.37	0.13	0.12 to 0.62	0.004*

Before the workshop, children had an average score of 0.63 ± 0.22 for knowledge, whereas after the workshop, their score increased to 0.85 ± 0.15. Model 2 showed a significant difference between the full model and the null model (GLMM, χ ² = 64.93, df = 5, p < 0.001; Table 2), with child's age (p < 0.001), and the 2‐way interaction between testing phase and child's gender (p = 0.002) being significant. Specifically, children scored higher after the workshop as compared to before, and the increase was higher for girls than for boys (Figure 3). Additionally, older children were generally more likely than younger ones to score higher in the knowledge section of the questionnaire.

Figure 3.

Participants' knowledge about spider monkeys (as a score ranging from 0 to 1), as a function of condition (i.e., whether knowledge was tested before the conservation workshop, Pre, or afterwards, Post), separately for girls (F) and boys (M) participants. For each participant and condition, gray asterisks represent girl participants', and black circles boy participants' knowledge scores. The thick lines represent the median values for each condition and gender, the horizontal ends of the boxes represent the 75% and 25% quartiles, and the ends of the whiskers represent the 97.5% and 2.5% quartiles. On the x axis, data points are jittered to avoid overlapping.

Before the workshop, children's average score on behavioral intentions was 0.41 ± 0.13, which increased to 0.52 ± 0.18 after the workshop. Model 3 displayed a significant difference between the full model and the null model (GLMM, χ ² = 27.95, df = 5, p < 0.001; Table 2), with the 2‐way interaction between testing phase and child's gender having a significant effect (p = 0.029). Specifically, after the workshop children scored higher in the behavioral intention section of the questionnaire, as compared to before, with the increase being higher in older children than in younger ones (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Participants' behavioral intentions about spider monkeys (as a score ranging from 0 to 1), as a function of condition (i.e., whether knowledge was tested before the conservation workshop, or afterward) and participants' age. For each participant and condition, gray asterisks represent participants' behavioral intentions before the workshop, and black circles participants' behavioral intentions after the workshop. The two lines represent the model (the gray one for participants' behavioral intentions before the workshop, and the black one for participants' behavioral intentions after the workshop).

In their drawings, children obtained different scores on how they incorporated information regarding morphology, ecology, sociality, and human‐monkey relationship. On average, children scored 0.87 ± 0.30 for morphology, 0.69 ± 0.31 for ecology, 0.24 ± 0.35 for sociality, and only 0.07 ± 0.18 for human‐monkey relationships. Model 4 revealed a significant difference between the full model and the null model (GLMM, χ ² = 74.67, df = 11, p < 0.001; Table 2), with both topic (p < 0.001) and child's age (p = 0.004) having a significant effect as main terms. Specifically, post‐hoc analyses indicated that all children were more likely to incorporate aspects of morphology and ecology in their drawings as compared to aspects of sociality and human‐monkey relationship (all p < 0.001). Additionally, older children, on average, scored higher than younger ones.

A qualitative assessment of the satisfaction survey showed that most children expressed high satisfaction with the workshop: all children reported that it covered an interesting topic, that they had an enjoyable time, and that they relished the activities and collaborating with their peers. Furthermore, 96.30% of the children expressed a desire to participate in the workshop again; 74.08% felt that the workshop had an appropriate duration, 14.81% thought it should have been a few days longer, and 11.11% that it should have been much longer.

Regarding the family survey, qualitative analyses showed that only 66.66% of the surveyed families (8/12) reported that their children conveyed them information about the workshop. However, all parents reported that they considered the workshop's focus an engaging topic to discuss at school, and they found it valuable that their children had acquired more knowledge about spider monkeys and their ecosystem. Additionally, most parents expressed their interest in the implementation of more activities related to spider monkeys and their ecosystem within the school's curriculum, and one parent preferred not to respond.

4. Discussion

In line with our predictions, our study found a shift in conservation‐oriented attitudes, knowledge, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions in children after the workshop, compared to before (Prediction 1). These shifts were evident in various measures: knowledge increased after the workshop, with more pronounced changes among girls compared to boys (Prediction 2), and behavioral intentions also improved, with more significant changes in older children compared to younger ones (Prediction 3). Finally, children's knowledge about spider monkeys, after the workshop, appeared to be more comprehensive regarding their morphology and ecology, as compared to their sociality and relationship to humans.

Overall, results suggest that the program we implemented effectively shifted children's attitudes (Model 1), knowledge (Model 2), and behavioral intentions (Model 3) towards spider monkeys, which are crucial to foster a nonconflictual relationship between human and nonhuman primates [e.g., (Ardoin et al. 2020; Nyhus 2016; Stern et al. 2014)]. These outcomes may have been facilitated by the holistic and multimodal approach of our workshop (Stern et al. 2014), which incorporated artistic activities and more integrative forms of learning (Breuer et al. 2017; Franquesa‐Soler and Serio‐Silva 2017; Turkka et al. 2017), potentially aligning more effectively with the cultural context of the community in Punta Laguna. To validate these findings, future studies should include control groups, encompassing children who are tested twice but do not participate in the workshop, as well as children participating in different types of education interventions. Although nearly all children in Punta Laguna attend school, we acknowledge that school‐based interventions may unintentionally exclude the small number of children who are not enrolled. This is a relevant consideration also noted in other contexts (e.g., MacKenzie et al. 2017), and future programs should explore complementary strategies to reach these children.

Most of the children participating in our study reported pro‐environmental attitudes toward spider monkeys before the workshop, and the intervention appear to reinforced this perspective. Many children expressed a liking for spider monkeys and recognized the importance of this species within the community. Although the average change in attitude scores before (0.80) and after (0.84) the workshop appears modest, it was statistically significant in the model. However, this small difference must be interpreted cautiously. Given the already high baseline scores, many children were likely near the upper limit of the attitude scale before the workshop, which may have limited the possibility of observing larger increases—a phenomenon known as a ceiling effect. It is also possible that the change was driven by a subset of children rather than a generalized shift across the whole group. Future studies with larger samples and additional time points would be needed to better assess the dynamics and persistence of attitude changes over time, and to explore individual differences in response to conservation education.

In Punta Laguna, where several families derive their income from ecotourism activities within the reserve, it remains unclear to what extent these pro‐environmental attitudes are influenced by the economic role played by spider monkeys (Porter‐Bolland et al. 2013). Similarly, in southwestern Guyana children's attitudes towards endemic birds were influenced by their economic importance (Mulder et al. 2009). In Singapore, research indicated that childhood nature experiences and knowledge about fauna significantly influenced sympathy and habitat preferences for various wildlife species, including those of economic and cultural relevance (Ngo et al. 2022). These findings underscore the need for future research to delve in the underlying motivations for these pro‐environmental attitudes. In this regard, studies have shown that conservation programs that integrate local economic and social factors can enhance the effectiveness of environmental education interventions. For example, Kolinski and Milich (2021) found that community perceptions of wildlife in Uganda were positively impacted by interventions aimed at mitigating human‐wildlife conflict, emphasizing the role of economic and food security concerns in shaping attitudes toward wildlife. This highlights the potential value of considering the economic role of wildlife in conservation education programs.

Before the workshop, children exhibited relatively limited knowledge about spider monkeys. The workshop significantly broadened their understanding of the species and its ecosystem. Although conservation educational programs can effectively expand participants' knowledge, the resulting increase does not always lead to consistent changes in attitudes or conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions. The relationship among these constructs are complex and mediated by factors such as previous experience and cultural beliefs. For example, some authors argue that enhancing individuals' knowledge about wildlife can lead to pro‐environmental attitudes and behavior (e.g., Ardoin et al. 2020). Additionally, high species knowledge has been shown to have a positive effect on environmental knowledge and attitudes towards the environment (Härtel et al. 2023). Nevertheless, other studies indicate a lack of clear links between these variables or emphasize the role of various mediating factors in shaping these relationships, such as previous experience or religious beliefs (Junker et al. 2020; Manstead 2001; Marcinkowski and Reid 2019; Steg and Vlek 2009; Wallace et al. 2005; West 2015).

Regarding the children's drawings, the inclusion of more elements related to morphology and ecology compared to sociality and human‐monkey relationships may reflect either the emphasis of the workshop or pre‐existing familiarity with these themes. It does not necessarily imply deeper understanding. Certain concepts—such as social behavior or human‐monkey interaction—may be more complex to represent or were not as thoroughly covered or retained. Additionally, previous experiences with the species and individual habits (Masten and Coatsworth 1998) might have influenced previous knowledge about human‐monkey relationships, or the motivation to acquire novel knowledge of these different aspects, making it challenging for short‐term educational programs to impact these areas significantly. In the same line, the fact that children incorporated more elements about morphology and ecology into their drawings does not necessarily reflect a deeper understanding of these aspects of the species; it may instead indicate the workshop's emphasis on these aspects or the children's pre‐existing familiarity with them. Moreover, these results reflect the inclusion of specific elements deemed important by the researchers based on their scientific understanding, rather than an assessment of the children's overall ability or creativity. Children might have prioritized creativity over scientific accuracy, a factor that the evaluation does not penalize, but rather classifies separately. However, it is important to acknowledge a key limitation: the study did not include drawings collected before the workshop. Therefore, we cannot assess the extent to which the observed content reflects newly acquired knowledge versus prior understanding. This limits our ability to quantify learning outcomes based on the drawings and should be addressed in future research through pre/post visual comparisons (Masten and Coatsworth 1998). Our study found a notable increase in children's conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions following their participation in the workshop. Future research should determine whether children translate these intentions translate into sustained pro‐environmental behaviors over time. This type of impact could be assessed through longer‐term programs extending throughout the school year (Kuhar et al. 2010; Wright 2010), and follow‐up investigations to evaluate whether conservation education initiatives result in sustained pro‐environmental behavioral changes (Franquesa‐Soler and Sandoval‐Rivera 2019). Nonetheless, short‐term programs should like ours should not be underestimated, as various studies have identified benefits for participants' environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors (Bogner 1998). Beyond the measurable changes observed in the pre/post questionnaires, the positive responses from the postworkshop survey provide further support for the potential of conservation education as a catalyst for behavioral change. Families and educators noted that children shared what they learned at home and showed enthusiasm toward spider monkey conservation. Although not systematically evaluated, these qualitative insights point to a ripple effect that may extend the workshop's influence beyond individual participants to their households and community contexts.

Consistent with our predictions, participants' age and gender partially modulated changes in knowledge and behavioral intentions. Both boys and girls showed an increase in knowledge, with a more notable shift observed among girls compared to boys (Prediction 2). Similarly, behavioral intentions increased across all participants after the workshop, but older children showed a more pronounced shift compared to younger ones (Prediction 3). These findings may relate to general patterns observed across contexts: women and girls often display higher environmental concern (Tikka et al. 2000), which may have facilitated their acquisition of novel information, and on the general increase in learning skills as children grow older. Several studies have provided evidence of gender differences in environmental concern across multiple countries, supporting this observation. For instance, in a study involving secondary school students in Zimbabwe, girls tended to be more environmentally active than boys (Manjengwa 1998). Similarly, research in 14 countries, including Mexico, found that women exhibited higher levels of socialization towards being other‐oriented and socially responsible (Zelezny et al. 2000). Moreover, women farmers in Iran exhibited more positive attitudes toward sustainability (Karami and Mansoorabadi 2008). However, other studies have reported men showing more concern than women about environmental issues, due to their higher involvement in community pro‐environmental activities (Abdul‐Wahab and Abdo 2010; Hunter et al. 2004; Xiao and Hong 2010). Additionally the impact of gender on attitudes can vary depending on the species studied. For instance, Prokop and Tunnicliffe (2008) found that boys had a more positive attitude than girls towards bats and spiders, but not towards other species. Future studies should further explore how gender and age mediate changes in knowledge and behavioral intentions based on the study species. Nevertheless, and according to our results, it is important to note that the larger knowledge shift observed in girls may not necessarily be due to a higher interest in the topic, but to a ceiling effect in boys, who already exhibited relatively high levels of knowledge before the workshop. Our findings reveal that boys had a greater baseline knowledge, leaving less room for improvement. In contrast, girls started with lower levels of knowledge, allowing for more noticeable growth after the intervention. Therefore, the larger change in girls may reflect their initial starting point rather than a differential level of interest. In the future, it will also be crucial to customize educational activities to better meet individual participants' needs and interests and promote equal learning opportunities for both boys and girls, considering that gender equality is tightly linked to sustainable environmental development (Molden et al. 2014). Additionally, while the community of Punta Laguna currently maintains a positive relationship with spider monkeys, the implementation of this educational program can be seen as a proactive measure. Fostering conservation‐oriented knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in younger generations may help prevent future conflicts and ensure the continuity of coexistence between humans and wildlife in the area.

Finally, a methodological limitation concerns the absence of a pre‐survey for families. While our follow‐up questionnaire assessed family engagement and recall, it lacked a baseline measure, making it difficult to disentangle the influence of prior attitudes or knowledge. Families more invested in conservation may have been more proactive in discussing the workshop with their children. Future research should consider a pre/post design for family‐level evaluations to better assess change. However, it is important to highlight those certain questions in the survey had lower response rates, such as those related to the role of spider monkeys in the ecosystem and their vocalizations. These results suggest that future workshops could benefit from providing more focused explanations and activities on these topics to enhance participant engagement and comprehension. Addressing these gaps could help improve the overall effectiveness of the workshop and ensure that participants gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

In conclusion, our study demonstrated the effectiveness of our conservation educational workshop to foster children's attitudes, knowledge, and conservation‐oriented behavioral intentions. Similar programs can raise awareness about conservation and foster positive relationships between humans and other animals, complementing the efforts of researchers and NGOs in these communities. Future research should replicate this study in various communities to evaluate how different social (e.g., rural or urban) and environmental contexts (e.g., living inside or outside a protected area) may influence the outcomes (see: [Franquesa‐Soler et al. 2020; Mackenzie et al. 2015; MacKenzie et al. 2017]). These findings could inform the incorporation of culturally aligned conservation education programs into the curricula of Mexican schools at all educational levels.

Author Contributions

Miquel Llorente: project administration (equal), resources (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), writing – original draft (lead), writing – review and editing (lead). Paula Villariezo: conceptualization (equal), data curation (equal), formal analysis (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), visualization (equal), writing – review and editing (equal). Federica Amici: conceptualization (equal), data curation (equal), formal analysis (equal), methodology (equal), project administration (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review andediting (equal).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

SM v2.

Data Availability Statement

The anonymized data set and R script sused for the analyses presented in this study are publicly available on Zenodo at the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16530653. All personal identifiers have been removed or anonymized in accordance with ethical guidelines to ensure participant confidentiality. This repository includes all necessary materials to replicate the statistical analyses reported in the manuscript.