Applied Interpretation

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)!

Can the subject of your interpretive program be overwhelming?

In other words, is the site or the symbolism of the place, just TOO BIG for something as a standard interpretive experience?

I would say that in some cases…YOU BET!!!

Glacier Bay National Park

Recent research by the author (see the blog, “If the Mountains Could Bark”) found that the majority of recall of visitors who experienced Glacier Bay National Park via cruise ship was visual:

We were just totally overwhelmed at the majestic feeling of being there, you know surrounded by all of that magnificence.

I think the scale of it was the thing that was the hardest to get my arms around [it] was so huge- much like Denali, the scale, it’s just so huge… it is just so big.  Really when you come up on some of the glaciers and they are hundreds of feet tall and the scale is just hard to get your arms around.

…Jaw dropping….for eight hours…viewing mountains and glaciers that one had only seen on the Travel Channel or on a poster in the AAA office. A visual display that at times seemed surreal as the ship would glide past bits of ice and glacier till. Yet despite the enormity of it all interpreters attempted to offer information – ecological and historical – related to this magnificent spot. Content that, at least from our research, showed virtually no recall:

I don’t remember the details very well…but I’m sure it was a good program.

Yeah- the park service brought rangers aboard. And they gave a presentation in the auditorium and then I talked to them a little bit about Muir’s book on Alaska.

Do you recall anything that they may have spoken about? Very long pause.

Trying to remember right off hand- no… it has been a while.

The power of the subject – Glacier Bay – literally and figuratively overshadowed the interpretive message…whatever it may have been.

So then a question arises as to whether there is a need for interpretation at such a site. And if there were to be interpreters present maybe they best be used by roving and experiencing the jaw dropping experience on a one on one basis. My reaction then as it is now…YOU BET!!!

Where is there a requirement that interpreters MUST interpret? Why not just share in the moment. If the site or subject is so overwhelming why can’t the best interpretation just be…being there to share in the enormity of it? Our research has shown that places like Glacier Bay, Yosemite, and Haleakala may be better served with rovers who listen and enhance the experience rather than talk or tell about the wondrous place that surrounds them.

Share in the moment…not compete with it!!!

Do interpreters live up to their own goals for a program? Do the outcomes desired by the professionals meet the recollections / impact exhibited by the participant?

One approach to learn if an interpreter’s goals are met is through interviewing them following an interpretive program to get a sense of what recollections / impact his / her participants might have months after the program. Then following the program…and in this case from 6 to 18 months after the experience…interview participants to learn if expectations were fulfilled.

Denali Interpretive Program

Below is a sample of such an interview for an interpreter who led the Denali dog sled program

Author: For this specific program that you just did, what are things that you perceive that would be things that you think would be connections that would be made six months from now?

Interpreter: Well, I’m hoping that they are going to remember that it takes a lot to manage a park and that it’s a team effort. That was the number one thing. And the symbolization of team is not just the rangers, it’s really the dogs. That’s what I’d liked them to remember is, is how the dogs work together as a team and that we couldn’t run this park without those dogs. Those are some of the core concepts that I would like to be remembered.

Below are some recollections from visitors of that same program, six months following our interview:

You realize that you know they [dogs] are basically working, it’s not just a fun game thing where we are taking somebody for a ride or when they race to Nome. It’s just a working life and you say to yourself, it is so much better for the environment rather than run snowmobiles up and down the mountains. But they have dogs and it’s really a history, it’s a connection.

My husband and I both went away feeling how important the dogs have been through the history of the park, through getting them, enabling them to take care of the park in the inclimate weather that they have.

It helps people like me who, go hey, they’re doing some good here.  They’re not wasting taxpayer money or anything like that.  That there’s a good purpose behind having the dogs,

From these comments …and others like them…the interpreter’s expectations were certainly met.

Another interpreter was interviewed at the same park regarding her impact on participants of a visitor center program. Again, below is a sample of the interview conducted by the author.

Author – What did you want them to come away with?

Interpreter – I wanted them to see that there are lessons learned in the National Parks. With animals, it’s usually games and lessons taught by, you know, the parents or whatever, things that are learned that help them survive. With people, it’s lessons that we’ve learned from history and trial and error to help the park survive. So it kind of boils down again to survival, but also to the lessons that will help with survival. It goes with animals but also with us.

Responses eighteen months following the program offered general recollections about the animals she talked about, but certainly her attempt to connect games of animals and people was not retained.

What kinds of animals there were in the National Park and she told us about what not to do in front of the animals.

Just to familiarize with the bear and the animals and the whole park area there and the whole ecosystem.

I’m pretty sure they just mainly talked about all the different animals and all about them.

Two interpreters and two programs with two different results – the variance of the two outcomes may be influenced by the longer post program participant interviews. However, I believe these two different results are reflective of many other interpreters’ met…or unmet expectations.

And, to me, the only way to learn if your expectations are met is is to reach out to those who have participated in your programs and ask a few questions about what they walked away with long after they left your park or center! How else will you know if your expectations were met?

It seems simple enough – offer an interpretive program that shares the environmental degradations that humans have caused. Pro-active behavior is the only logical product from such enlightenment. Certainly hundreds of programs across the country attempt this task in one form or another. However, some of the research conducted by the author has found an opposite effect. In particular, with children, we have found that as they learned more about environmental issues the more some became “fatigued” by the complexity and shades of gray environmental issues can portray. In essence, these programs opened up a “Pandora’s Box” of questions and dissidence not suited for a brief interpretive experience.

In fact, results from several of our school programs showed that the students seemed to think that they were not capable of making a significant difference following park site visits. Prior to interpretive programs, students who were surveyed felt they were environmentally aware and that they wanted to make positive changes for the environment. However, a number of the same students responding to the same questions AFTER the interpretive experience answered in a much less empathetic way. Questions such as, “Do you plan on taking environmental action?” were answered with “Not really” or “No.…I don’t think I’d do a big thing to help support it [the environmental issue discussed in the program].” A lack of locus of control seemed more pervasive during the post questioning. As one student remarked, “Not really, because I am just twelve and I can’t do anything.”

This message is similar to the caution I gave in the preceding blog (see Successful Strategies for Environmental Interpretation) but, none the less, it is one that is well worth repeating. Some interpreters, and many environmental educators, will “crack open” the box simply to let the information out that WE would think is appropriate for our audience. But limiting such information to one side of usually multi-faceted issues can be harmful. In this author’s opinion this technique led to a national reputation…and to some degree accurate…that many environmental interpretive / education programs were more environmental activist oriented rather than educational.

Due to their brevity, interpretive experiences cannot allow proper time or rumination for students (or adults) to understand and assimilate complex environmental issues. So what is the solution? Keep the box closed unless you’re prepared to have it fully opened! In which case, be prepared to offer a holistic view of the issues – which would necessitate more time than an interpretive experience can offer!

Rainforest Hike in Hawaii

So how does interpretation come to terms with the fact that it IS NOT environmental education and hence doesn’t have the crucial ability to offer long term experiences? [See my July 21^st blog for more on the relationship between interpretation and environmental education] The answers are not simple but certainly one strategy would be to understand its strengths in relation to influencing stewardship and focus on those directions during the precious time an interpreter has with his/her constituents. Here are some suggested strategies that may help and are consistent with the research:

Focus on the Entry Level Variables

The notion to emphasize the basics is not a new concept. Certainly, the roots of interpretation are grounded in the call of John Muir, “I’ll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood, storm and the avalanche. I’ll acquaint myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I can”. Reinforcing this initial mission of the profession is crucial and consistent with what seems to be retained by most visitors interviewed in our research studies. In fact, this basic objective may truly be the most important outcome of interpretation.

Connect the Environmental Message to the Visitor

If one finding from my research becomes apparent it would be the success an interpretive message has when it connects with the visitor’s own life. This tenet doesn’t change in approaching environmental messages. In several of the author’s research studies there were individuals whose interviews following their interpretive experience would reflect a much deeper sensitivity to the environmental concepts or subject matter they had retained. A consistent trait of these individuals was their specific connection to the topic.

An extension to optimizing personal connections is an approach to “IMBY” (IN My Backyard) the interpretive message. For example, a program on wildlife at any resource site offers a range of potential. But through all the visuals and dialogue that can accompany such a topic nothing could be more enriching to the visitor than offering challenges to the audience to find similar flora and/or fauna in their own backyard.

Handle Environmental Issues with Care!

Although the origins of interpretation were simply to reveal information and wonders of nature, there became a growing interest to have interpreters do more to make visitors aware of the resource and the environmental issues associated with these places. As the issues regarding our environment grew during the 1960’s and 1970’s the call for interpretation to be a change agent continued to grow. Today, the desire to impact a visitor’s behavior toward the park is paramount. Unfortunately, this call for interpretation to solve the environmental ills of our society is not reflective of the actual impacts that this medium can attain. And as noted previously, some research shows a negative reaction to some types of issue awareness.

This certainly is not suggesting we ignore issues – we cannot and must not. But they should be offered sparingly and with great care when it comes to younger audiences. And most certainly they should be presented to adult audiences with the utmost non bias factual precision. For example, as we move through the next few decades, global warming issues will be apparent and paramount at many resource sites. Hence, rather than avoid them, they should be interpreted with the utmost scientific backing and not through personal speculation.

Be Pragmatic

Our profession has an excellent body of research that does support the notion that it can impact basic awareness of a resource site. It does not have the same evidence that it can move beyond this aspiration – nor does it need to. We can only hope to create stewards of our environment through a chance visit with an interpreter. We can only wish that a visit to a park will motivate a person to act responsibly toward that site. We can, however, reveal to them the beauty of the resource and the power of nature. We can also make them aware of the intricacies of this environment. These basic, yet crucial, goals are ones that interpreters can accomplish. They can form the foundation for the attainment of our ultimate goal – environmental stewardship.