Applied Interpretation

After more than a year and over 50 entries it’s time for me to focus on other projects and spend more time with my research. I have appreciatd the opportunity to share my thoughts, ideas and concerns related to the field. More importantly, I have enjoyed the feedback from these postings which I have truly appreciated. If you have kept up with my entries you know that many of the topics have related directly to my book Applied Interpretation. But, certainly, I have also offered some thoughts that have sparked readers – both positively and some negatively.  I feel that as I continue my work in interpretation we need (from time to time) some “shaking up” to get folks thinking about what strengths our profession has and certainly what things need to be improved upon.

There is no better job than that of an interpreter – an occupation that offers the chance to share with others the wonders of natural, cultural, and historic sites. I consider the ten years that I led and designed both personal and non personal interpretive experiences as the most fulfilling times of my career. But my interest and desire to learn what we can achieve as interpreters has certainly been my niche for the past 17 years.

And so as I finish up with this project I hope YOU will not be afraid to ask the hard questions. In particular, no matter how you have been trained or where you received your “interpretive knowledge”, don’t hesitate to find out if your programs, signage, field trips, or general visitor experiences DO make an impact. The more we learn about what works and what doesn’t the better we will be for it!

My blog and the book are an attempt to offer results, observations, and patterns from applied research. It is the hope of this old researcher and past interpreter that much more of this type of assessment can take place. In the end, much of what may be discovered can solidify principles and goals developed previously. But some of this work may also offer new directions in interpretive methods that could further enrich our outcomes. Whether reinforced principles or new premises, the results from this work can help clarify what all of us want – long lasting recollections and positive impacts of our preciously short interludes with the visitor.

Thanks for reading and happy interpreting!!!

In a recent meeting with many leaders of our field I began to hear from others what I have also felt and certainly have shared during the past several years. In the raw form, some of the voices in the room offered the following characteristics / skills that need to be further addressed for the interpreter of the future:

Interpreters who are really and truly present and genuinely in the moment with their audience (whether one on one or with a large group) are by far the most successful.

Interpreters should enable youth to offer their own stories and not always be bombarded with only our stories.

Interpreters should offer experiences that relate to the actual visitor and make it as much as a participant involved experience as possible.

Interpreters must attempt to engage with the visitor more than we have in the past in order to help them better engage in the resource.

Interpreters must learn as best we can of what type of visitor we have and attempt to respond to those diverse backgrounds.

What I would note – as I did in the meeting – is that we seem to want a much more “two way” oriented interpreter than our classic didactic style of offering our interpretive message. And hence, I would classify this person as a Two Way Interpreter [see ‘One Way’ versus ‘Two Way’ Interpretation]’

For those who have read my book and/or follow my blog, you’ll understand the satisfaction I have in this “new interpreter”. It seems to me – and I believe for many in that meeting – we must see this new interpretation go beyond the idea of attempting to relate to the visitor with general concepts and or ideas that may or may not strike a chord with such diverse audiences. Instead, we must actively engage with these visitors where THEY may be associated with the resource – both geographically and cognitively.

This active constructivist approach is one way our profession can attempt to become more connected with our constituents while, in turn, could aid in resolving other long standing issues such as the perceptions that the traditional interpreter is disconnected from mainstream public. In short, we move beyond the visitor center desks and campfire rings to actively engage with our constituents.

It is certainly a more difficult approach, but it is one that I see is crucial to the advancement and success of the future of interpretation.

The following is part two of my responses to the reactions of my entry two weeks ago, My Biggest Gripe about Researchers. Thoughts one through three can be found in last week’s posting, Stirring up a Hornet’s Nest – My Biggest Gripe about Researchers – Part Two.

Thought Number Four

Similar to my first thought, and important to reiterate, my work has involved long term impacts / recollections related to interpretive experiences. Hence, when I noted that themes are over rated – and remember one of my roles is to stir up the pot – I am referring to long term retention of those particular themes.

As I noted a while back in my entry Themes are Over Rated and Chapter Eight of Applied Interpretation I have found in many of my studies that recollections – long after a visitor leaves the park – was much more related to interpretive techniques – the “how” they offered the information rather than the “what” seems to hold more recall for many. Also, if information was vividly recalled there was a high probability that that information had some direct personal relevance. And as I have noted in my book, I have personally witnessed some wonderfully themed interpretive experiences that end up having a stronger recall of the touchable items passed out at the end of the program! So, again, I would certainly not disagree that visitors will retain information pertaining to a theme BEFORE they leave a site or immediately following a program. However it’s the impact a month, six months, or even years after the interpretive experience that have always intrigued me the most.

Thought Number Five

My work for the past few years has related to memory. As noted in my book and other entries in this blog I have investigated this domain due to the episodic nature of interpretation. And certainly when it comes to the longitudinal approach I have chosen for my work, recollections are certainly a key to zeroing in on specific aspects of a single program / experience even two months after it has been completed. I point this out to respond to Tim’s comment that memory does not play a predictor or correlate with behavior. This may be certainly true related to communication theory and its related research but it is not accurate regarding research in episodic, semantic, and/or autobiographical memory. There are a myriad of studies in these areas that are finding that the more vivid a memory is, the higher potential for attitude and behavior changes. Below are two observations from leading psychologists that note my position:

The directive function of autobiographical memory is to use past experiences as a reference for solving current problems and a guide for our actions in the present and the future.

Williams, H. L., Conway, M. A., & Cohen, G. (2008). Autobiographical memory. In G. Cohen & M. A. Conway (Eds.), Memory in the Real World (3rd ed., pp. 21-90). Hove, UK: Psychology Press

Memories of personal experiences and the rewards and losses associated with them can be used to create successful models, or schemas, of behavior which can be applied over many scenarios.

Robinson, J. A., & Swanson, K. L. (1990). Autobiographical memory: The next phase. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 321-335. 

Well, in sum – here is what I’ve learned about the last three entries in my blog:

1)      People actually do read it!

2)      Stirring up the pot isn’t always a bad thing

3)      I need to a get gig like Sam Ham so I can go to the Galapagos!!

I remember a few months ago I was explaining to a colleague my reasons for spending time weekly on a blog for NAI. First, of course, was to keep the word of my book and its related research “out there”. But another reason was to sometimes “stir up the pot” with particular entries that I believe are healthy for the field to read…generally information / stances that can be sometimes in contrast with mainstream NAI thought or philosophy.

Well…last week’s entry certainly did that!

When the unquestionable leader of our field, Dr. Sam Ham, sends a response – from the Galapagos no less – something must have struck a chord! So the purpose of this entry is to address some of the observations and concerns (see comments section) that were noted by Lisa Brochu, Tim Merriman, and, of course, Dr. Ham. [Please note - I am going to break one of my unwritten rules of my blog philosophy and make this a bit longer than normal.]

Some Thoughts to the Reactions

Thought Number One

And possibly the most important to clarify – my statement regarding the improbability of interpretation to impact environmental behavior is focused on LONG TERM BEHAVIOR. My interest in longitudinal impact coincides with our profession’s historical and continued interest in this goal [Chapter four of my book, Applied Interpretation, goes into full detail regarding this position as well as a brief overview  in a few of my entries including Successful Strategies for Environmental Interpretation.]

Thought Number Two

The visitor behavior that Tim and Sam are referring to that has been proven to occur – which I have no disagreement with – relates to SHORT TERM or on-site visitor adjustments. For example, the studies / projects that were mentioned by Tim and Sam included the following:

Decrease littering

Deterring wildlife feeding

Keeping dogs leashed

Acquiring donations on cruise ships

All of these actions – particularly the latter -are important on site behaviors to influence. But – to reiterate my position – my interest has always been the influence of interpretation long after the program was completed. Can it have the impact that seeing the movie Jaws did – and by the way, good luck finding an interpretive experience that would rival that masterpiece of a movie! Or can it change ones’ life as Lisa and Sam noted in their responses?

Thought Number Two and a Half

Before I move onto to my third thought I would like to address a topic that Tim and Sam brought up and is certainly a crucial aspect to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) – salient beliefs of a visitor. Sam has noted in much of his work related to TPB that accurately identifying visitor’s beliefs are crucial. As he states in a recent report, “If you identify beliefs that are not in fact salient to the behavior you want to promote, then your messages will miss the mark and you can expect little improvement over the status quo.” Through his work he has been extremely successful in targeting beliefs through his front loading of his studies and his surveys that he has conducted on visitors’ beliefs toward particular park behaviors.

HOWEVER, his exceptional work runs counter to what I would consider the norm where an interpretive venue has had little time or resources to have an accurate read on the salient beliefs of its visitors. I have noted my frustrations with this through consistent observations of a lack of a constructivist approach to interpretive programs. See ‘One Way’ versus ‘Two Way’ Interpretation. In other words, if we are not asking what the visitors are thinking than how do we know what they believe?

Thought Number Three

Thankfully for our field both Lisa and Sam had interpretive “encounters” that motivated them to devote their careers to our profession. However, there is a solid body of research (Tanner, Chawla. Peterson …) that shows this episodic influence is much less common of an influence in behavior change than long term experiences with parents or peers in the outdoors. This is more fully developed in Chapter Four of Applied Interpretation and touched on briefly in my entry Experiences that DO Promote Lifelong Stewardship.

Along with this research comes a sobering national study of influences on utilizing the outdoors (a crucial variable to environmental sensitivity). This study, conducted in 2009, interviewed over 40,000 individuals nationwide on a variety of outdoor topics including influences on going outdoors. The results were very similar to the ranking of influences found by Chawla and others. Their findings stated:

Most youth are introduced to outdoor activities by parents, friends, family and relatives. As outdoor participants age, the parents’ role in their participation diminishes, and friends gain an increasingly influential role. Self-motivated individuals (those not influenced to participate in outdoor activities by anyone but themselves) also emerge in young adulthood. Few youth ages 6 to 17 cite the media, experienced mentors or outdoor education programs as motivations to begin participating in outdoor recreation. (Outdoor Foundation, 2009)

Not exactly what we may want to hear but I believe our profession must gain a PRAGMATIC view of what we can and cannot do when it come to changing long term environmental behavior. Yes – there is no question that there is a myriad of studies – including Sam’s – that shows we can change on-site / short term behavior which is certainly important. But are those interpretive experiences or media able to influence a human’s behavior long term?

Here is where Tim and I certainly agree…we need to keep studying to find out if it actually can!

Thought Number Four

Enough thinking for one entry – so stay tuned.

PS – Hope your enjoying the Galapagos Sam!

One of the most frustrating aspects of the research world is the notion that somehow the researcher will always find ways to prove his / her hypothesis is correct. For me, I can see it within the first few pages of a research article or report that – hell or high water- their point will be proven. I am not saying that this happens all the time but I have certainly seen my share of this self fulfilling prophecy enough to keep a critical eye on any research findings.

I bring this up now because in last week’s entry [When Seasonals Outperform the “Career” Interpreters] as well as several other entries during the past year of my blog I have raised issues / concerns about results that contradict what we think should be the findings. For example, most of us in the interpretive world would assume the veteran would “out perform” the seasonal but we have learned that certainly isn’t always the case.  

This brings up a point that I am most proud of as a researcher for this field – you can say many bad things about me – and goodness knows many are well deserved – but one thing you can’t say is that I will find what I want to find in my research. In fact, many a study I have begun with a hypothesis that seems sure NOT to be proven!

Below are examples of studies that I have embarked on “hoping” to find one thing and ending up with results that were totally contrary – and in many cases – painfully so!

First – we can start right at the beginning of my research career with my doctoral dissertation and four to five years of research related to this work. In essence, I developed a model of interpretation that would aid in changing environmental behavior. As I outline in my book, and more briefly in past entries [see Is Environmental Interpretation the same thing as Environmental Education?], I have learned that an episodic event – such as an interpretive program – cannot change environmental behavior – painful, but at least from my studies, a pretty darned accurate statement.

Another hypothesis that I always felt would stand up to research scrutiny was that a well planned theme would win the day when it came to long term recollections of an interpretive program. Well… that didn’t turn out the way I planned either! Goodness knows some of the best thematically organized programs I have evaluated over the years just didn’t have the long term impact I had hypothesized they would [see Themes are Over Rated].

There have also been findings that I wasn’t expecting that would certainly qualify as pleasant surprises. In particular, I had no idea of the importance of family interpretation especially after enduring many years of leading programs with this type of participant demographic [see CHILDREN are CONDUITS]. Who knew that the little munchkins interrupting my planned talk would be so important to influencing their parents’ recollections of the experience?

Another pleasant “hypothesis buster” is that my research has consistently shown that the length of the program and size of participation generally made little difference in the long term impact of an interpretive experience. As I noted in Time and Size May NOT make a Difference! one of the most powerful programs I ever studied had over 200 participants, and lasted 20 minutes!

All I can say – with a smile on my face – is that I am not one of those researchers who will find what they want to find. On the contrary, I seem to constantly find what I don’t think I’m going to find!!!

Hence, why my wife suggests counseling…or a different occupation!

One of the discussions that have been taking place through the NAI blogs and beyond relates to the concern that the field – as a viable profession – may be in question. I have shared my own questions and issues about our direction (see NAI’s Dilemma Meets Social Reality and What We Know from Research). One of the main issues is the increase use of seasonal and volunteer staff to lead interpretive experiences while decreasing the use and, in turn, the hiring of full time positions. This is certainly evident in the National Park Service along with other agencies and organizations throughout the country.

So it certainly seems imperative that our profession be able to defend to administrators that hold the purse strings that maintaining a professional staff of full time interpreters is important to the visitor experience and ultimately aids in the successful promotion of that particular agency’s mission. And as we all know there are many arguments to support the continued professionalism of interpretation.

HOWEVER… our quest in accomplishing this goal is hindered, at least in the opinion of this researcher, if there is information out there that can support the idea that there may not be much of a difference between veteran / full time interpreters and their seasonal or non paid counter parts. Case in point…the study discussed in my last entry (see The Didactic Dilemma – Another Ranting from the Old Researcher) offers the following conclusion:

Results from the interpretive programs observed in this study reveal that seasonal interpreters outperform their more experienced and knowledgeable counterparts.  The [agency’s] seasonal interpreters combined to completely fulfill eleven out of the fourteen observable and successful methods of interpretation.  On the other hand, a full-time interpreter, with thirty years of experience, and a wildlife biologist combined to completely fulfill just four of the fourteen observable and successful methods of interpretation.  Such results seem to indicate that experience in the field of interpretation and extensive knowledge of environmental science does not necessarily equate with successful interpretation.

This observation has also been noted in several of my previous studies. A variety of past interpretive programs at National Parks evaluated by the author showed that the visitor’s knowledge retention and attitude impact had nothing to do with the experience of the interpreter. Rather, it was associated with whether that individual had the ability to connect with the audience and offer the interpretive message in a way that would relate to the visitors’ own experiences.

In sharing this information it certainly is important to point out that other professions may share that same dilemma. Certainly, we all have experienced through our own lives or that of our children that many a student teacher can be as “successful” as the veteran teacher if, in particular, they are enthusiastic and passionate about the subject matter they teach. So certainly this is not a problem exclusively associated with interpretation.

HOWEVER, in times when we are seeing a transition from career oriented positions to seasonal and volunteer staffing it behooves us to make sure that the veteran interpreters are representing the abilities and skills that we would expect with the PROFESSIONAL interpreter!

Well…here I go again…so be forewarned now if you don’t want to hear some venting!!!

Much of my research – along with my years of countless observations of interpretive programs – has noted that we should “walk the talk” [see ‘One Way’ versus ‘Two Way’ Interpretation]. In particular, if we want to connect to the visitor then by all means let’s communicate WITH them and not AT them.

Well… much to my chagrin more qualitative data has come in to continue to support our hypocrisy! A graduate student from Indiana University just completed his masters’ work which will be published in a research journal at a subsequent date. His work – in brief – was to observe interpretive programs and through a matrix based on successful attributes on interpretation analyze how many of these strategies were implemented. Variables he was looking for included, (a) attempts to make a personal connection with audience members, (b) employs hands on activities, (c) delivering concepts through a variety of contexts, and (d) repetition of key information.

Several of his findings were poignant regarding current conversations about the direction of our profession especially with regards to career oriented positions versus seasonal work. But that discussion I will hold for a later time.

What I do want to “vent” about relates to one of the programs he observed that actually was an interpretive experience at a training session to TRAIN seasonals. The summary of this interpretive experience is noted below by the graduate student:

The program observed by this author was conducted by an interpreter with over thirty years of interpretive experience.  This presentation was approximately one hour in length, and focused on geologic history. At the start of the program there was no attempt to make a connection with the audience.  A few times during the presentation, the presenter mentioned that telling stories which demonstrate how geology affects people, can lead them to take an interest in this subject. However, he did not mention learning about an audience’s specific, and individual, experiences in an effort to achieve such a goal.

The interpreter delivered the program through an oral presentation.  Information from this presentation could also be found in two lengthy hand-outs given to the trainees.  These hand-outs covered much of what was in the presentation.  Yet, the only time most of the trainees looked at the hand-outs occurred when the presenter asked them to view maps as he discussed the various aspects of his topic.  Aside from fossil and map viewing, oral presentation was the only context in which information was conveyed.

The speaker was quite experienced with giving oral presentations to large groups; he was obviously very comfortable speaking in front of a large group.  Anyone observing the presentation would know that the interpreter had a passion and enthusiasm for geology.  His voice, however, was monotone.  It was apparent that many of the young seasonal interpreters were not paying attention; they were gazing into the distance rather than focusing on the presenter.  Paying attention to the speaker’s presentation was made more difficult because he, on several occasions, went on tangents that were not related to the subject matter.  These tangents would last anywhere from thirty seconds to a few minutes.  On one occasion, a tangent ran into another, at this point the interpreter had to admit he was off topic.  Although one could sense the enthusiasm of the speaker, the enthusiasm did not transfer to the audience; many of the participants did not appear to be paying attention to most to the presentation.

His review of this program has such an unfortunate pattern – an interpretive style that I have found in so many cases and have documented through this blog and my book.

To recap…

An experienced interpreter

An enthusiasm for the subject matter

An hour-long oration

No interaction with the audience

Waning interest from the participants

ASPECTS OF AN INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM

THAT OCCUR FAR TOO OFTEN IN OUR PROFESSION!!!

Two weeks ago I had posted a concern regarding the status of the interpretive profession in response to Jim Covel’s sobering status report of NAI’s membership. My entry [see NAI’s Dilemma Meets Social Reality and What We Know from Research] seemed to strike a nerve with some folks and the status of interpretation as a profession. One of the concerns I shared was the lack of students who have shown an interest in becoming an interpreter.

However, there is a point I neglected to share in this previous posting… there is no shortage of students who want to work in the outdoor field. Since our programs at Indiana University offers a variety of resources and faculty, our curriculum can prepare students to be professionals in outdoor jobs which includes adventure educators, resource managers, camp administrators AND interpreters.  My point with this information is not as much a pitch for Indiana’s program (although I would be happy to speak with anyone interested in receiving a degree from our institution!). It is to note what I came to realize after my venting a few weeks ago – we do have folks going into professions that offer interpretation as an aspect of their professional endeavors. More specifically, with each of the outdoor fields that our students choose there is an interpretive element involved.

In fact, over the school year the majority of courses I teach are not in interpretation but are in the field sciences  that are required for anyone working in an outdoor – natural resource oriented position.  I offer classes in applied ecology, ecosystem management, water ecology, forest ecology and park management. In each of these courses I incorporate ways that this basic yet important information can be imparted to their constituents – whether it is clients on an adventure expedition, families visiting a park, children at a summer camp, or individuals who actually participate in an interpretive experience. Hence, over the years, I have adopted the notion that the skills / techniques of interpretation should be integrated into a variety of outdoor related professions.

And when I look at students who leave IU and have the desire to be in the outdoor field a majority of those motivated people have found full time professional employment in the outdoor field. True – not all of them are interpreters but those who go in other professional tracts do have the skills to interpret the natural resource to the particular people they face on a day to day basis.

Would I want more folks interested in interpretation rather than adventure education or even resource management?  – You bet. But, at least, I find comfort in knowing that those who have chosen a different outdoor path (no pun intended) do have the ability to share their particular expertise to the public in relevant and dynamic ways.

And, hey, isn’t that what Freeman wanted anyway???

As much as I despised family programs for the feeling of being a baby sitter rather than an interpreter, these audiences seem to have a power that certainly goes under the idea of “if I knew then what I know now”. Several of the research studies we have conducted have found that a primary variable for adults to gain long term impact of a program was if their sons or daughters enjoyed the experience.

Two studies, in particular, uncovered the influence a child’s reaction to the program had on the adults that were attending the same presentation. Both interpretive venues were evening talks – one at a campfire and the other at a visitor center. In both cases the parents may not have recalled much about the program content but they did share that their kids either enjoyed the program or remembered information about the program long after it had ended.

One of the programs pertained to bats of Indiana. The hour long program’s goal was to make visitors aware of the natural history of the bat, the fallacies of negative bat behavior, and improve attitudes toward bats. Eighteen months following the campfire presentation a sample of visitors were interviewed to learn what, if anything, had they learned or recollected about that evening program. One of the themes that emerged from their answers was related to their own children’s responses to the program. These participants were concerned about their children’s’ reactions to the program. They would notice and remember any part of the program that interested their children:

We had a bunch of kids…but even my 7-years-old, they said pretty well they were interested [in the bat program]…I remember we talked about that [bats’ guano] and my kids thought that was really interesting. I thought they did inform us, and my kids did go home wanting to help bats…I think it is important for the little kids.

Why do I remember…I guess because we enjoyed this so much and the kids really liked it, and we liked it.

A second program that was evaluated dealt with white-tailed deer – a representative mammal in the ecosystem of this region of the country. The general objective / goals of the program were to make visitors aware of the natural history and life patterns of the white-tailed deer. In particular, the program focused on the animals’ adaptations for survival and their impact in the region’s food web. The hour-long program took place inside the park’s nature center. Two years following the program a sample of participants were interviewed to learn what, if any, lasting impacts occurred from the program. As the participants described what they remembered, it was discovered that family ties were related to the context of recall. First, they recalled specific reactions of their children interacting with objects passed around and displayed openly on a table:

They liked being able to touch the antlers and I think she had a hoof, and a hip socket or something; some sort of moving bone. You know that they were able to actually hands-on, um take a look at.

I remember our kids really enjoying the speaker and how she explained how deer can hear far distances and so she showed how the deer use their ears by cupping her own ears. My kids still use that when they want to hear something far off in the woods!

These examples are reflective of other responses we have had over the years related to long term impact of an interpretive program. Certainly, it seemed that if the children enjoy the program and are engaged in the subject their parents’ recollections of those positive experiences will last long after the program is over.

And so if I were transported back twenty years ago, I would be happily focusing my interpretive program on the children nipping at my heels knowing that their positive experiences would ultimately “rub off” onto their parents.

It seemed like a great idea. Two weeks ago the Knapp clan went to Conner Prairie – a living history museum just north of Indianapolis. A wonderful facility that we had heard about but never had visited. The site is well known not only in the state but I suspect throughout the country as a successful historical venue that mixes both first person living history (circa early to mid 1800’s) and third person narrative from a large staff of interpreters.

Reenactors at Conner Prairie

I was personally excited to go because this particular weekend was one of their larger events that drew reenactors from all over the region to put on a large Civil War battle. Since one of my first jobs as an interpreter was to be a company clerk for the Union Army at Richmond National Battlefield, the event brought back fond memories of a life long ago.

I will refrain from making this entry a review of the park and its ability to mix both first and third person. Although, I must say, seeing Abraham Lincoln standing near a hot air balloon that had (of all sponsors) BP blazoned on its side, was a bit hard to take. But suffice it to say Conner Prairie is a well run interpretive venue.

What I do want to share is experiences that we had as a family that supports research that was completed by Conner prairie staff several years ago. Ellen Rosenthall and Jane Hetrick conducted a qualitative evaluation of the impact of a visit to Conner Prairie. In particular, they looked at how families reacted to the exhibits and the learning approaches that were taken to assimilate the museum’s messages. In one of their findings they stated,

We found that the nature of family interaction with interpreters had the greatest impact on learning. Learning conversations were more apt to happen if an interpreter had stimulated it. The parents in our study had tried earnestly (and repeatedly) on their own but more often than not faced frustrating resistance or outright noncompliance, unless an interpreter sparked the conversation.

Interpreter at Conner Prairie

AMEN to that!!!! Talk about research smacking you in the face….since I, of course, had been a fine interpreter in my day…and certainly living history was right up my alley, I just assumed that my kids would hold onto to every word I’d say… well not really. But I did want to try and be a good “home school” type parent for our visit. Unfortunately, my attempts at one on one tutoring were failing miserably. Take this exchange as an example:

Father (me) – Hey did you know that I used to dress like this and would actually talk about the defense of Richmond during the Civil War? Do you see those flags they are carrying? They represent the places they lived and the state they had come from…

Daughter – Dad…how big of a toy can I buy at the gift shop?

Son – Hey was that popcorn…can we go get some…please???

And so it was for most of the day – I futilely attempted to share my infinite knowledge on Civil War history and juicy tidbits about the 1800’s.

But to no avail…my daughter got a cornhusk doll at the gift shop and my son and his mother ate kettle corn for most of the afternoon!

But wait…there is a happy ending (sort of)…Only when the kids stumbled onto an interpreter leading a candle dipping session and a blacksmith (in first person) that talked about shoeing a horse did my fine offspring actually stop and listen!!! And so the words spoken by Conner Prairie’s researchers couldn’t have been more on target. I was the frustrated parent attempting to educate while the Conner Prairie’s interpreters came to the rescue!

And who says research is just for professor types…it’s helpful for Dads as well!

Reference

Rosenthal, E. & Hetrick, J. (2002). Family learning in a living history museum in Family Learning in a Living History Museum. Routledge Press.