Applied Interpretation

NAI’s Dilemma

In the current NAI Blog, Jim Covel sates:

Our membership is aging. As a whole, we’re retaining long-term members (that’s good) but we’re not adding new (and younger) interpreters in sufficient numbers. As a result, the average age of NAI members is increasing. That’s not a desirable long-term condition in any sustainable population.

Social Reality

This dilemma, unfortunately, runs consistent with my own informal observational research at Indiana University. Over the past decade, fewer students are interested and/or even know what interpretation is and what it can offer as a profession. This trend is consistent with other institutions of higher learning where colleagues have expressed the same concerns of a declining “clientele” of students taking up interpretation as a profession.

The reasons for both NAI and higher academia’s dilemma can be rooted in current soica-econconic conditions as well as other broad factors. But certainly one point that I feel can be made to this problem lies in our lack of connection with the upcoming generation.

What We Know from Research

It’s ironic (or perhaps symbolic) that since connecting to the audience is such an important goal to achieve in successful interpretive programming, our connections to future generations to continue this profession seems stagnated. Certainly enough of my research – and the basic writings of interpretation – have supported Tilden’s belief that “if it ain’t relative it probably won’t work”. So….what we as a profession must look at is what is relative about our profession to make key connections to a younger generation. Please note that I am concerned with the idea of profession. This stems from another observation from the NAI blog that more of the potential membership is part time, seasonal, or volunteers. Although I don’t disagree with this reality, I do suggest we must focus our concern on how to keep interpretation a profession and not an ephemeral vocation.

So a dialogue that must take place is not only how we connect our park subject to the visitor, but more importantly, how we connect our profession to future generation??? Over the years at Indiana I have come to a conclusion that I now rarely see a “passion” for interpretation…if anything there seems to be many more young people yearning to climb a rock rather than teach about it. I have been a part of the original Earth Day generation (circa 1970) and have witnessed the rise and seemingly endless reign of what I call a “Mountain Dew Generation” of rock jocks and mountain bikers. But now there is a rebirth of modern environmentalism that seems to be stemming from a range of issues that include promoting healthy lifestyles to stopping climate change.  Ironically, these environmental challenges including the current tragic oil spill in the gulf, offers a potential stimulus to promote at least one aspect of our profession which would be environmental interpretation.

How Do We Attempt to Solve the Dilemma?

Ultimately, whatever the current generation is or wants to be (many of my students now call themselves part of the trophy generation because they were raised to believe they could never lose and that everyone deserves a “trophy”) is something our profession must look into and identify. And most importantly – as we hopefully attempt to do with our park or museum visitors – is decide how we can connect with younger folks to make interpretation their career. Certainly, as time goes on and the disparity of interests (and age) increase, the ability to draw in a future generation to our profession will only become more problematic.  

Final Note – I would like to call on NAI to offer time at the next conference in either a concurrent session  or other appropriate format to have a discussion on ways we can reconnect to our younger generation.  To me, it should be considered a top priority issue to resolve.

Ideas, thoughts, etc. from you would be great!

In previous postings I have promoted the interpretive strategy of roving (see A One on One “Magical” Moment; To Rove or Not To Rove?). I certainly feel that it is a technique that can (and should) take place in virtually every area of a resource site. This could include a visitor center, overlook, campground, trail or any other place where visitors will be found. The cruel reality of the interpretive profession is that less than 20% of visitors actually participate in a formal program. Therefore, the need to be proactive and take the Park’s message to the visitor is crucial. Roving is one way to meet that objective.

It is also important to note that planning a roving experience should not be any less thought out than a traditional interpretive program. There are many specific site factors that would need to be taken into consideration before one embarks on a roving experience. Although many of those variables can only be identified by on-site staff there is, what I consider, three common sense tips that should be heeded when practicing roving.

Location, location, location – Choosing the “right” location for the roving experience increases the odds of quality face to face time with the visitor. This may not mean that the roving take place at the busiest site of a Park – i.e. in front of a visitor center – but rather a place where people are most likely at their “terminal” destination of an experience. In many cases, these locations will enhance the odds of a question from a visitor and with any luck and skill the interpreter can create his or her own program with a gathering audience. For example, hanging around the parking lot of a major trailhead is probably NOT where you want to be…people are either getting ready to go on their hike or packing up to leave. However, locating yourself a few hundred yards down the trail will certainly increase the odds for visitors to be “ready” to hear from an interpreter or to possibly ask questions related to their hike.

Timing is everything – Although the notion of roving would suggest an unstructured day, the actual implementation of the technique should be carefully choreographed with optimum times of visitor contact. However, since the strength of roving is its “teachable moments” the interpreter should always be ready to stop and “chat” with a visitor – even it is on the way to having lunch! For example, under the common sense category, if a site wants to get to folks who venture out of the car and into the resource it would be prudent to catch your “prey” heading out while they are fresh and excited and not later in the day when folks are returning and have “spent” their attention and focus.

Having a “hook” – Wearing a park uniform may be enough of a draw for visitors to be attracted to a roving interpreter. However, it may not hurt to have some type of prop or “hook” that can help reel in an audience. For example, following the author’s observations at Haleakala (see THE GOOD, BAD, AND THE SILVERSWORDS), the staff began to institute a roving “program” where they periodically set up an odd looking solar panel. Like bees to honey, visitors began to drift to the ranger to learn of the strange contraption – and so the program on Haleakala and the cultural history of the sun gods begins!

One of the major arguments against roving has been the ability for seasonal or newer interpreters to be able to offer spontaneous interpretation. The “hook” strategy helps with this challenge by enabling the programmer to have a particular topic area that they can offer information and, in turn, answer questions.

As noted above these may seem to be common sense…but to me…getting an interpreter out in the park and going to the visitor also seems to be common sense. So whatever or however it takes let’s get out there and rove!!!

In the previous post I talked about how a few photographs and music set off a strong message at the Big Hole National Battlefield visitor center. In another small museum, one painting offers a major “hook” for its visitors to visualize history and make lasting connections.

Grand Canyon National Park’s Tusayan Museum provides a glimpse of Pueblo Indian life centuries ago. The center offers “Glimpses of the Past”, a popular museum tour and walk interpreting the artifacts and culture of an 800 year old Pueblo Indian ruin discovered near the south rim of the Grand Canyon. The program is offered on a daily basis with the first part of the experience touring the museum and then exploring the adjacent ruins. A part of that tour is a Roy Andersen painting that offers a rendition of the Pueblo community as it may have looked 800 years ago (see inset).

The painting of the Pueblo community

In a research study conducted a few years ago, we contacted visitors ten months after their visit to the site. Like many of our studies, the objective of this research was to find out what were aspects of the experience that stood out and made for lasting impressions. From the responses of the participants we interviewed, the painting was an important portal to the Pueblo history. Many of the visitors referenced the painting in helping them conceptualize aspects of the Pueblo Indian culture. Visitors were able to imagine both the structure of the original building as it may have appeared and the daily life of the human inhabitants…thanks to the painting. Below are responses that are representative of much of the feedback we got from the study’s participants:

Well it looked like low walls of stone. It looked like ruins in the sense that there was nothing more than about a foot high. But you could see the pattern of rooms in the stones on the ground. And I remember thinking that a lot of people lived in a relatively small place. Then I remember thinking that I was really glad I saw the diagrams and descriptions inside the museum because it allowed me to visualize what the ruins would have looked like.

Like I said, I think most of the walls were like maybe a foot or two tall but you could see the footprint of the buildings and kind of get a sense for how it was. I think that’s where the painting inside really helps. You get, that was the full reconstruction.

Interpretive program at the Tusayan ruins

What I remember was a fairly large painting or drawing that was showing the village as it would have looked with people around it. I thought it was a very good thing to have to, before going out and looking at the ruins to give you an idea of what those structures would look like.

I thought it was interesting to start with the painting, giving a visual example of something to look at then telling the story from that so that you kind of use different senses

Although the Tusayan Museum is a small facility, the large painting that is the focal point of the museum exhibits became a “portal” to enter when the visitors explored the adjacent ruins. To these visitors it was a painting that was worth a thousand words!

About two weeks ago I took my family to a new nature center in a nearby state. I was excited to see how it looked and how my children would respond to it. At first glance I was happy to see the kids touch all the touchables and stare (albeit briefly) at some of the hands-on exhibits and the many dioramas that were displayed at the center. There were several rooms with a variety of 3-D displays and even a couple of video spots that reviewed the history of the park site. Along with these newer types of interpretive media the center also had a handful of live animal displays – including the ever popular snake and snapping turtle - and a bird viewing area.  In fact, the new facility probably covered every ecological and historic topic related to the park.

WARNING – this is where the old researcher starts to vent so you may want to turn back while you can!!!

As we drove home I asked my wife how much do you think the kids got out of the visit and how much she remembered of it…”there was a cool snake and some stuffed birds….and some puppets…”

There have been many research studies done related to the educational impact of signage and exhibits – at nature centers as well as museums and other visitor centers. These evaluations have ranged in approach – from amount of time visitors will stop and look at a particular exhibit to actual pre and post test instruments that will help measure how much someone might recall from the exhibit messages. There are some consistencies in the results – that for this researcher seems to be of no surprise.

First, unless intrinsically motivated, most folks won’t stay long enough to read / take all of what the exhibit has to offer.In fact, Rebecca Wiles and Dr. Troy Hall from the University of Idaho offered a synthesis of research in this area and stated:

A widespread finding is that, regardless of their attracting power, signs do not hold visitors’ attention for very long. For example, even in a science museum, where visitors presumably come to learn, the typical visitor engaged (for 5 seconds or more) with only 39% of the exhibits, and the mean time of such engagements was only 1.4 minutes. In outdoor recreation settings, as opposed to museums or science centers, holding time is much lower. (2003)

A second consistency in the research is that due to the brevity of contact with exhibits many folks learn less than what might be hoped. As Wiles and Hall points out, “Simply looking at a sign does not guarantee that visitors will learn from it…And the magnitude of such learning effects appears to be quite variable… Often the effects, though statistically significant, are small in a practical sense”. And certainly the research regarding any attitude or behavior change due to exhibits or signs is even less supportive.

Ok…so what is my point with this ranting – especially in relation to the new nature center? If general knowledge – and certainly attitude and behavior changes – are darn near impossible to accomplish through signage / exhibits why then do we take the “collection bin” approach when it comes to visitor center design? Why is there this inherent notion that, similar to the nature center, we need to put in as much information as we can about our site under one roof?

How about just choosing a particular message and keeping with that topic or feeling throughout the museum?

Big Hole Battlefield Visitor Center

One of my favorite places to have actually accomplished this strategy was the site of my first employment as an interpreter – Big Hole National Battlefield. At this small museum people would enter a teepee shaped building that showed stunning photographs of the people and sights related to the massacre of the Nez Perce people on the banks of the Big Hole River. In the background were voices of people who survived the battle as well as Native American music – and that was it! People left with a feeling about the “battle”.

Could there have been more signage and exhibits related to the event – you bet. But, thankfully, the Park Service decided to take this affective path which left people wanting to know more – not wishing there was less!

Now, back to the nature center – I believe the desire to not miss information for the sake of the visitor is understandable. I would suggest that many interpretive programs will attempt the same course – put as much information in a 40 minute hike so that your participants remember something. But it is well documented that there is only a certain amount of information a human can take in a short period and retain. So, if the facility is built as a “field guide under a roof” where folks can come back multiple times to revisit certain topics then the “collection bin” mentality makes sense.

But…if you have a place that more than likely will get the same visitors once or twice over a long period of time then maybe we should take the chance…pick a particular area / topic and have them immersed in that theme.

It may be a gamble but it certainly beats a visit to a “collection bin” where the most vivid memory is an incarcerated snake!

Reference

Wiles, R. A. & Hall, T. E. Hall (2003) Understanding visitor attitudes, beliefs, and motivations about feeding wildlife: A literature synthesis and recommendations for developing signs to deter wildlife feeding.

As April moves quickly to May, school programs for many interpretive venues are at their height. Certainly, as an interpreter and environmental educator, my cohorts and I would joke that if schools had their way we would triple our teaching staff and add floors to our residential cabins since this seemed to be THE TIME to take a field trip. Since this is prime school season it seemed to make sense to offer another bit of research that we have conducted regarding the impact of the interpreter on school programs.

The results of their specific impact…well, pretty much nonexistent – sort of.

First, the impacts of school field trips that are prepped through the school [see Read This Before You Lead Your Next School Program! ] and offer dynamic and hands-on experiences [see Tried and Proven School Field Trip Techniques (#1)] can certainly have lasting impressions. However, students’ memories of the individuals leading these field trips have been far less vivid. Below is a piece from Applied Interpretation that relates to my findings:

Ranger Mike "working" the group

I don’t know who was laughing more – the students or the parents accompanying the children on the field trip to Clingman’s Dome in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. For the past twenty minutes Ranger Mike was explaining the effects of acid precipitation on the forest of the region. It was certainly not a humorous subject, but one that he was able to make engaging and entertaining for all who were watching. His style and charisma were variables I felt certain would come through when the author would interview the students a year later. But those recollections were not to be – nor were countless other memories that the researcher had of excellent interpreters leading school programs at their parks. The “power” of the ranger in school field trips (at least to the children interviewed) was overshadowed by the activities / experiences recalled from the program. Unlike the vivid and powerful impressions recorded by adults, the role of the interpreter for the children played much less of an influence.

I shared the “bad news” to Ranger Mike that the kids remembered the idea of air pollution but didn’t even remember if their guide was a he or a she. He thought that was fantastic! After all, he explained, the message is what he wanted them to leave with – not that he was a talented entertainer. And so it was, with virtually all school field trips assessed for this book. The ranger – no matter how personable, charismatic, or entertaining – was much less recalled than the experiences they were facilitating.

However, there certainly seems to be at least anecdotal information that would suggest otherwise. It is experiences that Ranger Mike and many others have offered to me when I have shared these results. It is the countless “run ins” – especially long established interpreters have had – with past student participants who recognize them at a grocery store or shopping mall and say something to the effect…”weren’t you the ranger who we hiked with in the Park  with my school?” That was such a great time…”

Any of you had that happen???

I know when I was an interpreter and if I had one of those “run-ins” it would make day!

So maybe we’re not that invisible after all!

Last week I took a class to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park for a field study course…it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it! One of the stops during the week was to tour Sugarland’s Visitor Center and have my students offer observations as to the types of interpretation that were taking place at this site. As a quick background, Sugarland’s Visitor Center is one of the most popular stops in the Park and actually is one of the most visited interpretive facilities in the National Park system with literally thousands of people entering the building on a daily basis. The center is a traditionally organized place with a visitor contact desk, museum, theatre for the informational movie on the Smokies, and… the gift shop.

Sugarlands Visitor Center

Each year that I teach this course (going on 15 years now) there is a clear and, to me, disturbing observation. One that I consider consistent with so many other interpretive facilities I have visited over the years:

 The contact desk had three lines of people asking questions to the volunteer staff – queries similar to any major park that has bear…

So where is the best place to see bear?

What’s the best trail to see bear?

Can we feed the bear?

Where are the restrooms?

The theater has about 30 in attendance for each showing.

The museum – which covers the most square footage – has about three to four families looking at the stuffed animals (the museum is a taxidermist dream!).

Then there is the gift shop…wall to wall people…buying everything from Smoky Mountain preserves to books on bear scat. Even with three staff on the registers there still is a long line waiting to purchase their souvenirs.

Now before I get on my soapbox I do want to clarify something – I too buy bunches of stuff from the gift shop each year and I certainly know that the money goes to a great cause which has raised millions for the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.

Ok now for my beef…is it me or does it seem as though visitors come to many interpretive centers and spend most of their time in the bookstore or gift shop than in the museum or exhibit area?  My answer is a hunch and not research based but I believe that one of the reasons is that not only because we want to buy something but, for whatever reason, we are drawn to that particular space more than the museum. I understand there are actually many reasons for folks to move toward the store than the exhibits but what strikes me year in and year out at Sugarland’s is the disparity. When there are possibly 20 people in the museum there are usually three times that crammed in the store. The museum does not draw the visitors in…and shouldn’t that be the place we want visitors…at least before they buy their trinkets?

There are places that attempt to resolve this gift shop phenomena by literally placing the store at the back of the museum or at the end of a facility such as when exiting a zoo or aquarium. Although this is a bit of the carrot and stick strategy it at least forces visitors to walk past exhibits before they get to shop!

So… for any of you reading this I would love to hear of places where there are less people (per square feet) in the gift shop than the exhibit area.

Oh wait….I have one…remember the City museum I talked about two weeks ago [see A Museum That “Gets It”]. Their store was empty…because everyone was in the museum!!!

First, a summary of an interpretive presentation that you already know not to do… hopefully:

It is probably one of the most historical sites for a campfire program – Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park. A crowd of 100 or so was seated to watch an evening program on Elk that began promptly at 8:30PM. The temperature was 45 degrees and dropping fast! The program started with a few light hearted anecdotes on wildlife sightings of the day and some promotion of the newsletter that each car receives at the gate house when they enter the Park. Following the “warm up” the interpreter showed a ONE HOUR slide show that had people beginning to leave at about 9:00PM. In fact, the author was so cold from sitting still that long (temperatures were now at 40 degrees) he departed the program at 9:30 with the leader still “verbally vomiting” about elk to a hearty group of about thirty folks!!!

The scenario above (that actually did occur) offers evidence that large group interpretation – when given to the wrong people – can be a dangerous thing! However, there is clear evidence that large presentations contribute to further understanding of resource information and, to some degree, can impact attitudes [see Time and Size May NOT make a Difference!]. The first step to conducting programs that can make a difference is to know key variables / techniques that an interpreter should display while offering such presentations.

Leadership - From the outset of a program, the visitor needs to know that the interpreter has the ability, confidence, and comfort in leading a group. Understandably, this variable comes from experience but must be conveyed so that the message of the program is not hindered.

Affection – this term conjures the notion that prior to an evening campfire everyone must embrace in a group hug – not exactly! It is the idea that when an interpreter presents their subject matter, there is a clear indication that he/she not only cares about the topic but also the people. In almost all the studies associated with this blog and the book, the interpreter clearly enjoyed and had a passion for the topic. However, many programmers lacked that same interest for the audience – something that resource site visitors can pick up on very quickly. If they see that the interpreter lacks interest in them then their own motivation for connections to the topic and interpreter will be in jeopardy.

Clarity – Knowing material well is quite different from being able to present it clearly. Again, in most cases, the interpreter may know his or her topic but if it isn’t clearly explained to the audience then a successful program will be in doubt.

Connecting the “What” with “Them” – If there is a theme to this blog – and to the research – it is making a connection to the audience. Too many large programs completely abandon attempts to learn something about the audience that could help them with their presentation. Simple questions, woven through a program, only requiring a raise of hands could aid an interpreter in presenting topics [see Forget about Communicating… Let’s Facilitate!*]. Similar to one on one interpretation, this technique “drops the safety net” but the more personal connections made – even in a large group setting – the better the chances for long term impact.

Emotional Presence – Since it is the interpreter versus “the masses”, successful presentation requires the use of voice inflection, gestures, and movements to elicit and maintain attention and to stimulate visitors’ emotions. Like other performers, interpreters must, above all else, convey a strong sense of presence and focused energy. Some can do this by being overtly enthusiastic, animated, or witty, while others accomplish the same effect with a quieter, more serious and intense, but equally engaging style. The ability to stimulate strong positive emotions in participants separates the competent from the outstanding interpreter.

You are the Conductor! – It can be easy to begin a presentation and become lost in the transference of the topic to the people who quickly become a faceless blur. But a master interpreter keeps up with the rhythm of the audience. Like a conductor, it is an obligation to pull into the presentation those that may be waning or calm those that might be discontent. In essence, large presentations are analogous to conducting sections of an orchestra with the conductor making sure all are on the same page of music!

Ok…so I know what my role is with this blog…and I enjoy sharing research-related information pertaining to interpretation. And generally, most of my postings have taken that route. But today, I want to share an experience at a museum that I have never really witnessed. So, yes, this is more of a subjective observation from a visitor, parent…but also a seasoned researcher.

The Place:     The City Museum, St. Louis, Missouri

The Time:     Spring Break

The Participants:   My Family

City Museum Entrance

Even before you enter the front doors you know something is strange about this place. A school bus is hanging from the top of the building…10 stories up! Surrounding the front of the building is a mosaic of metal scaffolding, bridges, pipes…and an airplane! Is it a construction site at an airport? Nope…it is the beginnings of an intricate series of slides, ladders, ramps all laid out in perfect disorder. And weaving in and out of all of this mess are people laughing, screaming, yelling, pulling, pushing…and did I mention laughing?

After our initial jaw dropping observations we (the Knapp clan) enter the building where the entropy continues…more slides, tunnels, ramps, yelling, cheering and…did I mention laughing? After paying the admission fee – which as it turns out was a bargain by any standard – I ask the lady for a map…her response:

“Are you kidding…go in and have fun!”

Inside the "museum"

Did we ever… my family spent almost seven hours in the place! That may not sound like a long time but for a family that is known to go through Chicago’s Science and Industry Museum in less than four hours it was a record for us.

At this point I will stop with the personal tour part of this entry…go to their web site to read and see more about this amazing place…or better yet, if you haven’t already… go visit it.  It’s open till 1:00AM – that’s right – and includes three bars and an aquarium…along with a 10 story slide that dumps you into a seemingly real cave!

Here’s my motivation for my “post card” from the City Museum. What struck me as the crusty old researcher was that EVERYONE was enjoying this place. Little kids, big kids, and bigger kids (moms and dads) were all engaged in the endless variety of experiential “exhibits”. Would I really call it a museum….not in the traditional sense…but more as a living museum where one could be a visitor from another planet (or New Jersey) and see all members of a family just having a great time.

So isn’t that how it works in most museums??? In my opinion generally not – either the kids are enjoying the “touchables” while the adults are managing them. Or…the adults are attempting to learn something from an exhibit while the children are trying to herd their parents to something less “boring”.

The City Museum does something I have rarely seen – in a museum or even an amusement park for that matter. It was designed to take every visitor and place them to the lowest common denominator….humans having fun with slides, tunnels, and big toys.

And quite frankly, with some of the findings I found from traditional museums that may not be such a bad thing!

First…What You Already Know Too Well!

Long ago and far away I had been an “in the field” interpreter / environmental educator for over a decade. I recall that during this time of year myself and other staff would begin to get the “spring rush” of school field trips to our site. In recalling this time I vividly recollect the consternation we would have in attempting to have the classroom teacher become more engaged in the lessons we would offer at the nature center. Actually we were happy if they would just keep up with the students! So the following may be painful to hear and is under the category of, “well, we know that…just wish the school teachers would follow through” but it may be just the evidence to use to plead with your visiting teachers to at least offer something to the students before they drop their kids off for the annual “outside” school trip.

Second …What You May Not Have Heard Before But Already Knew Too Well…

It is the notion that when students come to a resource site what they see, hear, touch are certainly novel to what they have experienced on a daily basis in the classroom. And with all this “new stuff” the likelihood of the children to retain actual knowledge you are trying to impart is quite a challenge. And so, not surprisingly, research has shown that to decrease some of the “novelty factor” and enable learning to occur at the site, pre and post field trip preparation has been found to be invaluable.

Third… Back To What You Already Knew But Is Reinforced Through This Research…

To illustrate the impact of classroom preparation prior to and after a field trip, a summary of the recollections of two very different field trips is depicted below:

Field Trip #1

A fifth grade class in Indiana takes a field trip to a city park that includes a large forest and a nature preserve. The three hour field trip included a guided hike and several activities related to environmental science.

There was NO classroom preparation and NO follow up regarding the trip.

One year later, students were contacted to learn what they remembered regarding the trip. Every student who was interviewed offered little to no recollection of the content that was offered during the program. In fact, many of these students hardly remembered what they even DID at the Park. Below are two examples of interview responses:

I remember we learned about nature

I think we learned about plants and played a game…

Field Trip #2

Another fifth grade class in Virginia takes a field trip to a nearby National Park. The program content for this field trip is geology of the area.

Unlike the first class, these students completed two weeks of pre field trip activities and wrote an essay following the trip.

One year after the program, the students were interviewed to learn what they remembered regarding the trip. Both content and activities were vividly recalled. Below are two examples of interview responses:

We were studying rocks in science at school and they wanted us to take a field trip up here to help us with that and we had to take a test on rocks and I think that probably helped me a good bit, on remembering what, like rocks and all.

Like, before I went I thought a rock was just a rock, but when I got there I learned about the different types and the rocks, um, how they come from lava to certain rocks and how it all goes back to lava again…like the rock cycle.

Field Trips That Are A Part Of The Class Curriculum Are More Effective…

But You Already Knew That!

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!