Applied Interpretation

Last week I had the pleasure to travel to the great white north to conduct a training workshop for interpreters from across the province of Saskatchewan. It was an educational trip on so many fronts. Not the least to learn that the country’s life blood is hockey and that a six pack of Labatt’s cost me $16.00!

But I digress…The most important lesson for me came in the middle of my workshop when I began a section on successful strategies to implement environmental interpretation. I asked the interpreters to write down three outcomes they would like to achieve in an interpretive program. As I normally do I write all of their goals on a board to help me preface the interest of interpreters to promote environmental attitudes / behaviors (normally at least a third of the goals in my workshops are related to environmental stewardship). But my normally sure fire “trap” failed. Out of the approximately forty outcomes desired NOT ONE related to environmental attitude and or environmental behavior.

I was baffled…”So why didn’t you folks include any of those environmental interpretive type goals?”

Their responses were as follows:

“Why would we? We can’t make such a change with our programs”

“We just want them to ‘feel the larch and taste the strawberries’…have them explore!”

“We want them to enjoy the park so they can tell others to visit”

Hmmm… so much for my prepared speech on the challenges of environmental interpretation [see Successful Strategies for Environmental Interpretation; Experiences that DO Promote Lifelong Stewardship]  They seemed to already have the idea – more so than some of  their counterparts in the states.

So then I get a little more aggressive and asked…”Well doesn’t the Saskatchewan government strive for interpreters to promote stewardship in their parks?”

Their answer: “I’m sure they do but it isn’t forced on us and we know that the important thing is to just get them ‘out there”

Bam!!! They beat me at my own game! Their grasp on this view  along with many other interpretive strategies that paralleled what research says is successful was impressive – not to mention a bit humbling since I was there to help “train” them.

A Hypothesis

One reason I believe the Canadians had such a grasp on things that I hadn’t seen in the states was the lack of a strong presence from “higher ups” to “do” interpretation a particular way. For example, the National Park Service’s constant drum beat is to promote stewardship through interpretation. As the Interpretive Development Program for NPS states in its first paragraph of its website,

The Interpretive Development Program encourages the stewardship of park resources by facilitating meaningful, memorable visitor experiences. The program is based on the philosophy that people will care for what they first care about. This is accomplished by aiming for the highest standards of professionalism in interpretation.

Now don’t get me wrong…of course it’s an important goal but if you have learned anything from my blog and/or my book it is the attempt to achieve this stewardship with such a short process (as interpretation) is problematic.

And so I now have a new appreciation for my fine new friends from the north who believe…get them out there to enjoy the park …but first play some hockey!

As part of a research commitment to Haleakala National Monument (located on the Hawaiian Islands), one of the assessment tasks was to observe the summit area to gather information on visitor patterns. The summit of the Volcano is the primary stopping point for the Park and hence receives the most visitation of any area on the mountain. A tale of two interpretive approaches emerged from my work – a good one and a bad one.

Interpreter "waiting" for her audience

The bad news first – one of the staples of interpretation of Haleakala is to offer a talk in an observatory that is located on a corner of the summit. The staff was frustrated with the lack of visitors actually attending these scheduled programs. So one of my tasks was to learn why the paucity in participants. Observations of the interpreter’s on site “marketing” of the program uncovered an influential reason for the lack of attendance. Fifteen minutes prior to the presentation, the ranger (who would have to drive from the visitor center to the summit parking lot) would get out of her car and walk directly to the observatory and wait diligently in the overlook for participants. Meanwhile, the summit area itself would typically have fifty to a hundred people at any given time exploring the area and the many spectacular views. In other words, the interpreter assumed people would come to her while, in reality, they were exploring the summit ridge taking in sights at their own pace. Hence, the ranger would manage to catch a handful of listeners while the majority was roaming on their own.

The "camo guy" (on the left) beginning to draw in an audience

Now the good news – sort of – one of the aspects of this Park that differentiates it from many others is the variety of privately run tour guides / quasi-interpreters who operate small businesses that will take vacationers from the beach resorts to the Volcano. One such operation – and a bit on the rustic side at best – had the answer to the Park’s observatory visitation dilemma. This man’s strategy was to let off his van load of clients and then walk to the iconic plant species of the park – the Silversword plant. Wearing a camouflage jacket, jeans, and smoking a cigarette, he immediately began to approach people and ask if they knew anything about the plant they were looking at. Within minutes his burly voice and animated style attracted 20 -30 people to the plant where he proceeded to give a “program” on the plant and the history of its use – all the while passing out his business card to drum up more paying customers for his all day excursions!

This scenario is not to suggest that Park staff change their uniforms and begin to smoke. But it does highlight the potential success of aggressive, one on one interpretation that can turn into an all out program. It also points out an important factor to successful “roving”. The individual must WANT to talk with people and, in fact, seek them out. Unfortunately, many interpreters observed through our research studies are quite content to plan a program, go to the program site and then give the program. Any disruptions from this pattern would just be considered an inconvenience.

A recurring theme to this blog – and to the research related to these postings – is the importance of making connections to the audience. For example, far too many large programs abandon attempts to learn something about the audience that could help them with presenting their message. Simple questions, woven through a program, only requiring a raise of hands could aid an interpreter in presenting topics – but certainly more importantly – help them connect their topic with the participant.

In other words, how about we facilitate more than elaborate! Difficult – you bet – and hence why I feel the art of facilitation should be a much more important aspect of interpretive training – but that is for another day. For now, I offer below an interpretive “conversation” that was delivered by a very able interpreter at Yosemite National Park. What makes this example even more impressive is that it was accomplished while touring 70 people around in a tram!

Making Connections at 20 MPH

…In your own lives, how many have had experience with floods? What was that like for you? Was that a beautiful experience? See some shaking heads. How many have experienced fire, either wildfire or house fire? Was that a beautiful experience for you? No again. How many have experienced an earthquake? Was that a beautiful experience for you? These are disasters, dynamic processes we refer to as disasters. Well, take a look at one of the most beautiful disasters anywhere in the world. Yosemite Valley is a result of all those dynamic processes combined. All those things combine here…

Yosemite Tram Tour

…What’s one of the dynamic forces each of us deals with, especially as we get older? Gravity. Nowhere is that more evident than at Rocky Point one of most active rock fall zones anywhere in Yosemite National Park. In 1996, 1-1/2 tons of debris came down at once, points out where can see it. Such an active rock fall zone because lots of cracks and fissures in rock up there, lots of freeze-thaw action as well. That action loosens up the rocks. These rocks come down in all different sizes and shapes. You can take a look at some as big as houses. You can imagine you wouldn’t want to be on this tram when 1-1/2 tons of debris came down. That’s gravity, always at work, always a dynamic force in Yosemite…

…Hard to ignore 3,000 foot vertical cliff rising to right. A spiritual icon for the Native Americans, El Capitan rises 3,000 feet straight up from the valley floor. Some of you are from Indiana. Have you stood next to the Sears Tower? How do you think that compares to El Capitan? It would take two and a half Sears Towers to make up El Capitan. It’s deceptive standing at this angle and looking at it, but it’s over 3,000 feet…

…Great question. The question was whether there’s any concern about climbers’ impact on El Capitan. Certainly there is. At many places, climbers are still drilling into rock. We don’t allow that here at Yosemite anymore, although we used to. Now we encourage different climbing where lead climber places protection and following climber removes it as they go up and take them with them. So only impact on rock is chalk from hands, and that washes off in next rainfall. So how many of you are ready for that challenge? I see a few hands…

In this researcher’s opinion this facilitating style beats the heck out of the classic “drag and brag” tradition of larger group interpretation. And similar to one on one interpretation [see ‘One Way’ versus ‘Two Way’ Interpretation; To Rove or Not To Rove?], this technique “drops the safety net” of “me talk and you listen”.

But it certainly sets up better chances for more personal connections which can last a lifetime!

*I know…facilitating is an important part of successful communication!

In the previous posting I had offered a model of learning for interpretation based on long term memory research. This model proposed that an interpreter would offer one or more of the program strategies that has been found to aid in long term memory. This approach would then enhance episodic memories or short term recall. The potential “strength” of these recollections would then hopefully become a part of semantic memories which has been found to develop conceptual knowledge which would become integrated into an individual’s schema.

A few years ago, the author conducted a research study at Lowell National Historic Park that offered an interpretive experience that resonated with the participants in its relevance. The medium was a guided canal tour of the Park. The visitors wind through the heart of the mills and waterways located in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts. Topics offered by the interpreter include the industrial revolution, mill operations, the role of the river and canals in powering the mills, immigrants, laborers, natural history, historic preservation, and ways in which Lowell has changed over the years. The relevancy of Lowell’s history to the participants created vivid recall that included general ideas / knowledge attached to participants’ recollections of the interpretive experience. Below are some examples:

Lowell Canal Tour

You really got a sense of where people came from for this mill work and how it grew up around Lowell, and what a really important place Lowell has been in the whole history of the Industrial Revolution.”

The significant role that Lowell played in the beginning of manufacturing in our country affected not just Lowell but became a forerunner for the rest and a model for many other parts of the country as well.

These responses suggest the possibility that the episodic recall was potentially “captured” in semantic memory which enables the individual to draw in general knowledge. Hence, the depth and richness of these answers (and many others found in the study) suggests memories that were beyond recall or remembering, but rather, information that possibly was processed into a conceptual representation or knowing. Below is a summary of the study’s findings which are outlined using the model of learning discussed last week.

In an attempt to further illustrate the use of the learning model, suggestions for other potential program strategies during the canal program are offered below:

Active Based Experiences – Since the canal program was primarily a didactic tour, more boat “responsibilities” could be assigned to the visitors. This could include aiding the interpreter in citing key points along the way or offering their own ideas of what they are seeing prior to the guide’s explanation. This approach could even include songs that were reflective of the mill era.

Concept Repetition – This strategy would be enhanced in this program through the elimination of some of the content to enable more focused and repetitive discussion related to their primary theme of the role of Lowell in the Industrial Revolution and the importance of immigrants in this story.

Personally Relevant – This program succeeds in attaining vivid episodic recall through personally relevant information. However, this approach could have been further developed by giving participants opportunities to share their own connections to the Park. Visitor stories shared through this format would have potentially motivated other stories from participants enabling more personal connections to be developed.

In summary, the program strategy of personal relevance enhanced the visitor’s episodic recall which in turn integrated into their semantic memory which became conceptual knowledge. And by the way…this information was directly associated with the mission of the Lowell Historic Park!

As I have noted in previous postings (see, for example, Is Environmental Interpretation the same thing as Environmental Education? An Interpretive Program – A Blip on the Radar Screen,) the brevity of an interpretive experience creates challenges in impacting attitudes and certainly changing behaviors – either related to the resource site or beyond. Therefore, much of my research in the past eight years or so has dealt with ways interpretive programs can be memorable to the visitor.

As my work progressed, I felt it was important to develop a potential framework to use to attempt to enhance participants’ memories of interpretive programs / experiences. In developing this “model of learning” I turned to the field of psychology and the vast amount of research that has been done on long-term memory. My review of literature related to episodic events (short in duration) similar to an interpretive program. I found that there were three strategies that seem to enhance long term recall. These were active experiences, repetitive content, and information relative to the participants. Certainly, at least one of these strategies should sound very familiar to interpreters since relevance to the visitor is Tilden’s first principle! Active experiences also should be one that is certainly used by many interpreters especially for school based programs. The third strategy of repetitive content seems to align more with formal education. However, I would argue that this approach could be adjusted for interpreters by focusing on one or two concepts in a program rather than offer a wide array of different information and or concepts that is difficult for people to retain…but I’ll leave that for another posting!

None the less, the model that I developed (see below) is based on the idea that an interpretive event would offer a set of experiences that would relate to one or more of the three variables that enhance long term memory.

A Learning Model for an Interpretive Program

This model proposes that an interpreter would offer one or more of the program strategies that has been found to aid in long term memory. This approach would then enhance episodic memories or short term recall. The potential “strength” of these recollections would then hopefully become a part of semantic memories which has been found to develop conceptual knowledge which would become integrated into an individual’s schema.

The simplicity of the proposed learning model reflects the episodic nature of interpretation. Its linear structure emphasizes the longitudinal impact that must be assessed to evaluate the “success” of learning. However, the program strategies offered in this model can only be implemented within the duration of the interpretive program which is, in many cases, less than an hour. Therefore, the types of experiences offered in the second stage of the model are crucial!

To summarize from the previous two entries in this series:

First, a pre and post visit survey conducted at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (JNEM) found significant impact to the visitor related to their connections to the history of westward expansion, knowledge of the time period and attitude toward the museum.

Second, six month post qualitative interviews revealed that the visitors recalled a variety of experiences from the museum visit and it certainly seemed to have some impact on those that were contacted.

A third question that this study attempted to answer was if the results of the quantitative and the qualitative evaluation were similar or different for those who participated in both. In other words, was the immediate impact of the museum similar 6 months later or had there been changes in recollections and/or impact?

In order to attempt to answer this question the researchers utilized a statistical process to compare the scores of the pre and post visit surveys with responses from the interviewees. The procedure to learn of the comparisons includes the development of individual prospectus of each person*. The importance of this individual prospectus was to allow the researchers to compare and consider all aspects of data for each visitor that participated in both an interview and the pre / post questionnaire.

Part of the prospectus was to learn who had shown changes in the pre and post visit survey then compare those people with their interview responses. Ideally, the researchers were hoping that those who did show significant change would also have interview responses that offered many of the recollections that were found by the total group of interviewees. Unfortunately, the results of this analysis showed that only two of the participants who completed the on-site questionnaire and completed the six month post interview had significant changes on their on-site surveys and also offered in-depth responses from the interviews.

So… what does this mean? Well, a couple of things. First, it should never be assumed that if visitors “do well” in responding to on-site evaluations that it translates to a longer term recollection or possible impact from the experience. However, since the interview results overall were somewhat “rich” in recollection it can be inferred that folks who did NOT show changes in the questionnaire may retain more than we think which can be brought out later through interviews.

Certainly, this aspect of the research project is considered a pilot study and so the results can’t be weighted that heavily. From my end, however, this study does support the findings of another evaluation we had completed (See Words versus Numbers…The Best Approach to Evaluate Your Interpretive Program) that quantitative results may not always parallel qualitative investigation. And certainly, if it goes down to a choice, I would take my chances with words over numbers!

Finally, the results from the Jeffereson National Expansion Memorial DOES add to many other studies by the author as well as others that visiting a museum can and does have both short and long-term positive impacts!

*I’d be happy to send anyone more information regarding this process…since I attempt to keep these weekly entries brief I have left out lots of statistical description.

So… as we found last week the pre and post visit questionnaires to the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (JNEM) showed a significant increase in several visitor impacts related to a museum visit. Their connections to the history of westward expansion increased, knowledge of the time period increased and attitude toward the museum improved. But as this author has stated over the months – in this blog as well as his book – results from pencil to paper evaluation instruments may not always show the actual depth and breadth of an interpretive experience.

Therefore, the researchers conducted in depth interviews with twenty of the participants of the quantitative study six months following their JNEM experience. The particular qualitative analysis that was used is defined as phenomenological. This approach evaluates the actual phenomena and its impact on the individual which, in this case, was the visit to the museum and its associated programs. Phenomenology demands an open mindset from the researchers to attempt to view the world as articulated by the participants. So…the interviews are led by the participant and not the researcher. And, in particular, are not influenced by a predetermined set of questions that a survey instrument contains.

The interviews were initiated with the following statement: ‘Can you please describe what you remember and participated in during your visit to the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial?’  A variety of prompts were utilized to gain an understanding of what the participants experienced at the site.  Questions such as ‘Do you recall anything from your visit to the museum’ and ‘what did you think about your experience within the Arch?’ were used to solicit visitor information.  Ensuing statements or questions that stemmed from participants’ responses were utilized in an attempt to clarify the participants’ discussion of the experience.  Interviews remained unstructured and participant-centered in order to promote control of the interviewees’ direction. 

The researchers transcribed the interviews and examined each individually. Initially, concepts, terms, and phrases of the participants’ interviews were identified and the data was “coded” into distinct categories.  Coded words included examples such as tram ride, buffalo, Lewis and Clark, Dred Scott, Courthouse, movie, food, etc.  These categories were then placed together into themes that centered on a variety of information recalled about the museum and its exhibits. These topic areas included the Native American role in westward expansion as well as the Lewis and Clarke expedition. Another recollection that was consistent in the findings was the Arch and its impressions on the visitors. Below is just a small sample of quotes from the twenty interviews:

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial

 It is a double edged sword good and bad.  Proud to be an American and also the Arch signifies another epic area in our history about what we did to the Native Americans and took their properties and their lands. It was good and bad.

For me- it is kind of what it says- the gateway to the West. It is about our country, literally the pioneers moving west and having the courage to go beyond the Mississippi. Which I am sure was a big deal at the time.  And in teaching my kids it was about that applies today because there are a lot of things we still haven’t done as a nation and as a people. We have to have the courage to go beyond the metaphor of it. I think is great. 

Well the tram ride was a very interesting – I wouldn’t call it an ordeal- but my wife is very claustrophobic and riding one of those little tram cars was considerably a challenge that was well worth the experience to get up there. And the wind was blowing just ever so briefly up there and so the arch was moving and that was kind of fun for me, but not too much for the rest of the people in the group that we had. It was very well worth going up there.

These three statements offer recollections related to Native American information, the symbolism of the site, and the “ordeal” of taking the tram to the top of the Arch. This variance represents the results for the qualitative evaluation – that the visit to the JNEM impacted the visitors in a variety of ways.

The significant results from the quantitative survey and the variance of recollections from the qualitative interviews certainly suggest that a visit to JNEM can impact a visitor. However, there is one final question…are the results from the two evaluation approaches similar. In other words, did the people who responded to the interviews with a good deal of thought and retrospection score well in the pre and post visit survey???

We’ll find out next week in the third and final part of this extended blog!!!

More than 350 National Park units preserve over 115 million museum objects, specimens and archival items to tell the stories of the places where many of the most exciting events of American history, cultural experiences, and natural phenomena have taken place.

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial

Of the hundreds of museums in the systems, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (JNEM) boasts one of the largest annual visitor counts. For example, in 2008, the site hosted 1.945 million people (National Park Service, 2009). The JNEM is an urban NPS memorial site, positioned along the banks of the Mississippi River, adjacent to Laclede’s Landing and downtown St. Louis.  Comprising the memorial is the Arch, the Museum of Westward Expansion, two movie theaters, and the Old Courthouse. The museum preserves some of the rarest artifacts from the days of Lewis and Clark. The exhibits, and related films and programs, explore the world of the American Indian and the 19th Century pioneers who helped shape the history of the American West.

In an attempt to explore the short and long-term impacts of a visit to JNEM Dr. James Farmer from Marshall University and I conducted a mixed method research study. This approach includes both quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

Participants for this study were solicited from the JNEM visitors who had self-selected to enter the memorial and participate in one or more of the programs, activities, and / or experiences offered at the site. Individuals were asked to complete a questionnaire prior to entering the memorial and then were asked to complete the same questionnaire as they left the site (the quantitative data). Visitors who completed both pre and post instruments were also asked to participate in a telephone interview five to six months following their experience (the qualitative data).

The Quantitative Results

One hundred thirty-five total participants completed both the pre and post visit questionnaire.  The questionnaire was developed to assess the impacts of the experience and to attain demographic information related to the visitors of JNEM.  An example of one of the questions from the instrument is shown below:

Other questions in this format evaluated change in learning from park rangers, personal meaning, knowledge about the park, and the novelty of the visit. The pre and post questionnaire was analyzed using a variety of statistical analysis.

The analysis found a significant difference among the 135 participants between the pre and post visit instrument. In other words, visitors were positively impacted by their visit to Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. Their connections to the history of westward expansion increased, knowledge of the time period increased and attitude toward the museum improved.

So do these positive results stack up with what they said about their visit six month later…check in next week’s blog to find out!!!

ToyMaker 3000

One of the tenets that I have expressed through my research has been that children are the conduits of interpretive messages. Many studies that we have conducted have found that the information / experiences gained by sons and daughters are transferred to the parents / guardians of these young people. Long term analysis of campfire programs and visitor center presentations have found that whatever the child reacted to ….in particularly in a positive way…the adult’s memory of such a reaction tends to be as strong or stronger than their own individual recollections.

However, I believe there is another child related conduit which is the one that is inside all of us. Certainly it may come out more when we are around children which is certainly my case with a five year old son and an eight year old daughter! And so this child came rearing its head in a big way on an overnight night trip to Chicago this last weekend. One of several stops we planned was a visit to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry – more than 400,000 square feet of incredible exhibits. But after the first hour and a half of threading through literally thousands of people with two very cute but somewhat tired children we were wondering if the $50.00 admission was worth it. Now, of course, since this is an interpretive blog I can’t say that it isn’t, but I’m not the greatest fan of huge museums that can resemble crowded shopping malls …especially on high volume days.

But then we found it…an exhibit that went straight to my heart…the ToyMaker 3000. An actual assembly line “factory” located in the museum that builds your own toy. Now you see, despite my age…let’s just say I remember Ozzie and Harriet…I love toys. In particular, Hot Wheels, but I’ll settle for a top if we can see it made in front of our eyes which is exactly what this exhibit does. The ToyMaker 3000 consists of eight interactive stations, 12 moving robots, and a 2,000-square-foot automated assembly line that can assemble 300 toy tops per hour! Our top…assembly line module number 61…took about ten minutes to build. And during that time I made a variety of sound effects to “enhance” the experience for my kids. And opposed to many other exhibits that I had no trouble shuffling them by to get past the crowds they got the idea pretty quick that their dad was totally into it.

Witnessing a line of robots making “our” own toy…I’ve played with it as much as my kids…struck the inner child that I know will help me remember the visit to this museum for years to come. And a funny thing happened as I made a fool of myself as the top was being built…my childish behavior became a conduit for my kids. After we were back home from our trip to the big city both Maddie and Jacob said they won’t forget how excited I was to watch the Toymaker 3000 – and their father who expressed his inner child!

Why can’t we just share in the experience???

Seriously…

In the years that I have conducted research at parks around the country I have instances where even if the site isn’t a Yellowstone or Glacier Bay (see previous blog) people would just as soon walk the trails, look at the sights, or just want to BE in the place. Certainly, much of the long term retention we have found from visitors is general at best when it comes to formal programs. And if it is vivid it almost always seems to be correlated to direct connections to the individual person.

In several of my previous blogs (for example A One on One “Magical” Moment; To Rove or Not To Rove?; ‘One Way’ versus ‘Two Way’ Interpretation) I have noted the obvious importance of the interpreter, the success of connections to the visitor, and the vignettes of instances where roving found more public interface than our traditional methods.

So here is my challenge….get you and or your staff from behind the podium, drop the scheduled Saturday morning hikes or evening presentations and walk WITH the people!

In fact, I want to call on interpreters to have a National Roving Week where all interpretive staff just goes out amongst the people…no matter whether it be a park, nature center, museum, or historic site.

So what do you think??? I’ll post it as soon as you write it (or at least as soon as I get to a computer)!