A Model of Learning for 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!
Perhaps this is where the difference between Interpretation and Education kicks in. If interpretation’s mission is to increase public awareness of its heritage, why is it important for individuals to remember ‘conceptual knowledge? Or do I have the wrong idea about what your blog is about?
If we are able to help visitors attain conceptual knowledge regarding the mission of the resource site than I believe our profession has done our job. The participant responses I noted in the next posting [A Successful Approach to Using the Learning Model for Interpretation] are what I would suggest is conceptual knowledge that was gained by the experiences during the Lowell canal boat program. And, more importantly, it is knowledge directly associated with the mission of the Park!
Are you using the term “conceptual knowledge” as follows? if so, which ones?
Types of Conceptual knowledge:
• Data – sensory observations (example: see a landscape)
• Information – logical correlations of data
• Knowledge – abstraction, assimilation, understanding by humans
• Wisdom – judgment and use of knowledge
• Decision – when wisdom is applied to problem solving
• Action – when decision is executed for operation
Good question. My definition of conceptual knowledge is outlined in a research article I wrote for the Journal of Interpretation Research (Knapp, D.H. (2006). The development of semantic memories through interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(2), p. 21-35.)
Below is a partial description of my view on this conceptfrom this article:
“Semantic memory enables the individual to draw in general knowledge that could be stimulated by episodic recall. Hence, the depth and richness of these answers suggests memories that were beyond recall or remembering, but rather, information that possibly was processed into a conceptual representation or knowing. Conway (1997) et al offers a more descriptive view of this process, “We hypothesize that shortly after the first learning experience is retained in a predominately episodic form, the memory representations move to a more conceptual and schematized type of representation…When this occurs, knowledge access is associated with knowing” (p.397). The preceding responses (along with others found in this study) notes conceptual thinking that moves beyond specific recall of the interpretive event and reflects a sense of knowledge of the topic.” p.33
And with conceptual knowledge of the importance of the resource that was interpreted to him/her, the individual is better prepare to act favorably toward preserving or enhancing it and similar resources in the future? Is that the point?
I would hope it would but I certainly don’t suggest that would be the case. As I noted in the last paragraph of the paper I cited in my last response (see below) what I am suggesting is that knowledge would be gained.
“It has long been believed that the success or failure of an interpretive message is based on the ability of the interpreter to relate the information to his/her constituents (Beck & Cable, 1998). This “belief” has come from seminal writings in the field such as Freeman Tilden’s Interpreting Our Heritage (1957) and Sam Ham’s Environmental Interpretation (1992). This study, along with the associated learning model, offers longitudinal evidence that the core value / essence of interpretation has the potential to make significant impact on visitors’ long term memory and knowledge of a park site and the message related to the site.”
I agree that there is more to interpretation than just “a good time was had by all”. The “all” to which I am referring to includes these entities:
1. The visitors (having enjoyment from their learning experience)
2. The interpreter (having job satisfaction and/or ego-gratification)
3. The management of the site (having its views on interpretation evident)
4. The agency (having its mission stated clearly)
I do think, however, that we interpreters must satisfy those four entities in the short run (our immediate jobs depend on it!) before we can begin to “make significant impact on visitors’ long term memory…”. Ideally, of course, satisfying such short run objectives will also satisfy “the core value/essence of interpretation…”.