 |
| Your Roving Constructivist at Big Bend, Zion National Park |
Introduction
“They
talk forever and forever and that is the kind of billingsgate they use.
Inspiration itself could hardly comprehend them. If they would only show you a
masterpiece of art, or a venerable tomb, or a prison-house, or a battle-field,
hallowed by touching memories or historical reminiscences, or grand traditions,
and then step aside and hold still for ten minutes and let you think, it would
not be so bad. But they interrupt every dream, every pleasant train of thought,
with their tiresome cackling. Sometimes when I have been standing before some
cherished idol of mine that I remembered years and years ago in pictures in the
geography at school, I have thought I would give a whole world if the human
parrot at my side would suddenly perish where he stood and leave me to gaze,
and ponder, and worship.”[1]
Describing
European tour guides in his book The
Innocents Abroad or, the New Pilgrims’ Progress, Mark Twain offers an
incisive indictment of interpreters and our “art.” Revered sage of
interpretation, Freeman Tilden, offers a very different description of
interpreters and their function.
“Thousands
of naturalists, historians, archeologists and other specialists are engaged in
the work of revealing, to such visitors as desire the service, something of the
beauty and wonder, the inspiration and spiritual meaning that lie behind what
the visitor can with his senses perceive.”[2]
I’ll take Twain!
I am certain I
can learn more from Mark Twain’s critical observation than from Freeman Tilden’s
more evangelical approach to the profession. Twain clearly puts the “visitor”
into the equation, and in a primary place. For all of Tilden’s lip service to
the visitor and his [sic] “first interest,” the interpreter is the central
personality in the meaning-making paradigm of interpretation. As a constructivist, and somewhat of a
skeptic, Twain speaks more to me than Tilden.
A Constructivist Approach
There is a great
deal we can learn from educational philosophy if we understand it well and
carefully apply it to the practice of interpretation. In too many cases, we
follow a very traditional approach to learning and teaching. Jacqueline Grennon
Brooks and Martin G. Brooks contrast this traditional paradigm with a
constructivist approach well in their book In
Search of Understanding: The Case for
Constructivist Classrooms.
“Traditionally,
learning has been thought to be a ‘mimetic’ activity, a process that involves
students repeating, or miming, newly presented information in reports or on
quizzes and tests. Constructivist teaching practices, on the other hand, help
learners to internalize and reshape, or transform, new information.
Transformation occurs through the creation of new understandings that result
from the emergence of new cognitive structures…Deep understanding occurs when
the presence of new information prompts the emergence or enhancement of
cognitive structures that enable us to rethink our prior ideas.[3]
Constructivism
is a very organic and authentic approach to teaching and learning that assumes
“…learning is an active process in which the learner construct(s) new ideas or
concepts based upon their current or past knowledge.”[4]
It is well documented in the educational literature but not frequently applied
to interpretation. Researcher Doug Knapp laments this in his book Applied Interpretation where he
describes the one-way form of communication, from the interpreter to the
visitor, that he most frequently observed. He then says, “…interpreters should
look at an interpretive approach that is based on a constructivist learning
theory that promotes interactions between the learner and teacher, or in this
case, the participant and the interpreter.”[5]
Knapp continues:
“A
major theme in the constructivist framework is that learning is an active
process in which the learner (in this case, the visitor) constructs new ideas
or concepts based upon their current or past knowledge. The learner selects and
transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on
a cognitive structure to do so. The interpreter and visitor would therefore
engage in an active dialogue with the interpreter presenting information that
matches with the visitor’s current state of understanding. Therefore, the
interpreter at times, would be a facilitator rather than an orator.[6]
A constructivist
approach to interpretation is one in which interpreters are less presenters
than we typically expect to be. The focus is not on the interpreter. We are not
at the front of the crowd. We are, rather, part of the crowd. In order to do
this well, we must have a great knowledge of park resources and the process of
communicating in meaningful ways…for the visitors. In a constructivist
approach, it is not about us. It is about the interactions between the visitor
and the place.
Roving Interpretation
One form of the
learning and teaching that takes place in parks in which a constructivist
approach to may be particularly valuable is informal interpretation or
“roving.”
Regarding
roving, Knapp states:
“Roving interpretation is personalized,
face-to-face communication where the audience has chosen the venue, the resource
is the stage, and the interpreter is the catalyst for knowledge.”
“Roving provides the means to protect the
resource and the visitor and to ensure a quality recreational experience.”
“Roving interpretation may seem
spontaneous, extemporaneous, impromptu, unstructured, ad-lib, or unprepared,
but this is not the case. When done properly, it is well organized and
planned.”[7]
Why
Rove?
There are many reasons why professional interpreters in
parks and other protected areas choose to engage in roving or informal
interpretation. Following are reasons generated at the National Association for
Interpretation National Workshop in St. Paul Minnesota on November 9, 2011.
·
Because visitors don’t come into the
building or participate in formal programs
·
To increase appreciation of the
environment
·
To gather knowledge of the audience
·
So visitors can initiate contact with
interpreters/protected area professionals
·
To present a friendly face to visitors
·
To allow visitors to start their visit
on a positive note
·
To enforce resource protection and
visitor safety
·
It provides a good respite from the
information or Visitor Center desk
·
Because the way people get information
has changed
·
Visitors can’t get to some sites
without “me”
·
It provides an opportunity for immersion
in the resource
·
It allows us to customize the message
for the audience
·
It makes the world smaller so the mind
gets bigger
Why
We Don’t Rove
In my experience, roving and other informal interpretive
activities are considered less desirable, less attractive to many interpreters.
I have heard “professionals” say that they are “too skilled” for that kind of
activity and that their talents are best applied to formal programs. I would
argue that roving requires a level of knowledge, training, and skill that many
of us do not posses. Following are “cons” or obstacles to roving as expressed
by participants in a presentation at the National Association for
Interpretation National Workshop in St. Paul Minnesota on November 9, 2011.
·
People are not trained to perform
informal interpretation
·
Professionals are scheduled at the
Visitor Center, not out in the field
·
Roving is considered to be inefficient
·
From a visitor perspective, “I don’t
want to be roved to.”
·
It is harder to track and measure
participation and success
·
It is not performed at “Headquarters.”
It is conducted “off-site” from the Visitor Center, Nature Center building or
the like
·
It is beneath us
·
“Management” says it is a waste of time
Looking at Some Numbers
If we were to
look just at numbers in justifying our interpretive program management choices,
we might consider abandoning formal programming. Please note, I am not
advocating this. I am, rather, suggesting we consider some of these numbers in
setting priorities and evaluating our programs.
According to
most sources, the greatest proportion of National Park visitors do not engage
in any interpretive programming at all. While roving, we have the opportunity
to contact visitors we might not otherwise see, particularly those in the majority
who do not participate in ranger-guided activities. In some parks, the vast
majority of visitors participate in formal interpretive or ranger-guided programs
(such as historic home and cave tours). In most other parks, very few visitors
participate in guided activities. A National Park Service Social Science
Program meta-analysis of 23 individual park visitor studies conducted in the
late 1990s found that less than one-quarter (22 percent) of park visitors
surveyed reported participating in ranger-guided activities.[8]
In Fiscal Year
2010, according to data from the National Park Service Servicewide Interpretive Report compared with annual visitation
statistics, there were 281,624,300 visits reported to units of the National
Park System. Only 4.4 percent of all visitors participated in formal
interpretation programs.[9]
Fewer than 30 percent of visitors were contacted by park interpreters at
Visitor Center desks and other similar contact stations. Fewer than 10 percent
of park visitors were contacted through informal or roving interpretation. Regardless
of how low the numbers are, by devoting the majority of our resources to
personal and ranger-guided services, we are missing opportunities to contact
the majority of our park visitors.
 |
| Data from NPS FY2010 Servicewide Interpretation Report |
Looking at
things from a cost point of view, we find that formal programs are generally
between two and three times more expensive than Visitor Center or informal
contacts. Granted, formal programs tend to be longer in duration than the
informal contacts. It should also be noted that visitor studies continue to
indicate that ranger-guided activities are considered important and of great
value to those who do participate in them. According to the National Park
Service Social Science Program meta-analysis of twenty-three visitor studies Visitor
Use and Evaluation of Interpretive Media, “Ranger-guided programs were
categorized as “very important,” and ranked higher in importance than all
non-personal media except self-guided tours and park brochures. Ranger-guided programs
were rated higher in quality than all types of non-personal interpretive media.”[10]
 |
| Data from NPS FY 2010 Servicewide Interpretve Report |
What Does Constructivist Teaching and
Learning Look Like?
Learning any
approach to practice presents a variety of challenges. One way to transcend
some of those challenges is visualize or imagine what how that new approach
might look like on the ground. Grennon Brooks and Brooks offer twelve
descriptive statements about constructivist teachers. Thinking about these
descriptors and offering examples of the same general qualities as applied to
informal interpretation can be extremely helpful. Following are their twelve
descriptions.[11]
1. Constructivist
teachers encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative.
2. Constructivist
teachers use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative,
interactive, and physical materials.
3. When
framing tasks, constructivist teachers use cognitive terminology such as
“classify,” “analyze,” “predict,” and “create.”
4. Constructivist
teachers allow student responses to drive lessons, shift instructional
strategies, and alter content.
5. Constructivist
teachers inquire about students’ understandings of concepts before sharing
their own understandings of those concepts.
6. Constructivist
teachers encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and
with one another.
7. Constructivist
teachers encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions
and encouraging students to ask questions of each other.
8. Constructivist
teachers seek elaboration of students’ initial responses.
9. Constructivist
teachers engage students in experiences that might engender contradictions to
their initial hypotheses and then encourage discussion.
10. Constructivist
teachers allow wait time after posing questions.
11. Constructivist
teachers provide time for students to construct relationships and create
metaphors.
12. Constructivist
teachers nurture students’ natural curiosity through frequent use of the
learning cycle model.
Applying Theory to Practice
What skills are
needed in order to effectively apply a constructivist approach to informal
interpretation or roving? I am convinced one critical skill is in the way we
know our resources. I believe that effective informal interpretation requires a
deep knowledge of park resources and a comfort with that knowledge that
surpasses what we might need to know for more presentational types of
interpretation. Due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of constructivist
interpretation, we must be at the ready to respond to resource questions on
numerous topics. The best advice I can offer here is to not only know your resource
but also know how you come to know places. We live in a somewhat transient
profession and often move from place to place, often needing to have a high
level of expertise in very short order.
One of my
literary sheroes is Terry Tempest Williams. In her essay “In A Country of
Grasses,” she describes the travails she faced as a naturalist grounded in the
Great Basin region on her first visit to the Masai lands of Africa. Her
approach to new territory guides my knowing of new places.
“For a naturalist, traveling into unfamiliar territory is like
turning a kaleidoscope ninety degrees. Suddenly, the colors and pieces of glass
find a fresh arrangement. The light shifts, and you enter a new landscape in
search of the order you know to be there.”[12]
I have been
keeping a roving journal, describing the situations in which I encounter
visitors informally. This helps me to consider the ways I can prepare in the
future, understand the kinds of questions I receive, define the arenas of
resource knowledge I need to augment, learn lessons about my visitors, and
determine good “opening lines. I keep a narrative journal. The National Park
Service Interpretive Development Program includes a roving contact form that is
more formulaic than my narrative approach.
I also have been
keeping track of “opening lines” and visitor questions” These are the questions
or comments that I have used successfully or been asked at the onset of
successful informal interpretive contacts. Following are some of those opening
lines questions and descriptions of how thy have been used.
Opening
Lines
·
Are you drinking plenty of water?
o
At
Zion National Park, as in any desert or arid environment, hydration is a
constant concern. I found it appropriate to ask anyone this question…often
coupling it with either filling my own water bottle or holding the bottle up as
an informal prop. The question about hydration often led into conversations
about trail distance, elevation changes, weather forecasts, etc.
·
Are you staying warm enough?
o
Also
at Zion National Park, this was often a humorous approach to the consistently hot
weather conditions. It was frequently followed by great conversation about the
climate of the area. It even led to conversations about climate change.
·
It looks like you are ready for xxx.
o
Based
on where visitors were and their clothing/outdoor gear, I would find it easy to
comment on the way they seem prepared for particular outdoor experiences in the
park. If there were more than one party present it often proved to be a good
way to begin conversations about proper preparation and visitor safety.
·
Thank you so much for xxx.
o
I
often thank visitors for properly disposing of waste in trash bins or recycling
containers as well as picking trash up or clearly staying on the trail, etc.
This is a good line to focus attention on a visitor’s good stewardship behavior.
It can also draw others into a discussion about resource protection and the
role each of us have in taking care of our most exceptional places.
Visitor Questions
·
How much further to xxx?
o
This
is one of my favorite questions. Visitors frequently ask how close they are to
a trail’s end or some specific destination. On some occasions I will respond
with a simple fact. More often I respond in such a way as to highlight where
the visitor is at the moment, pointing out some interesting feature or helping
them to celebrate the scene at hand. I want visitors to feel like their
experience is “complete” no matter how far they are able to travel. Each place
we are is special and no one should be made to feel less than able.
·
Which of these peaks is xxx?
o
I
offer this question generically. Visitors are often asking geographical
orientation questions. A great way to respond is to provide the information
they want and to potentially add a bit more. It is a great opening to a
conversation about area geology and geography, place names, distances,
way-finding, etc.
·
How long have you been a ranger here?
o
Time
and again, visitors seem to ask questions about the staff members they meet in
parks and other protected areas. Though I firmly believe that the interaction
between ranger and visitor is not about the ranger, rather the visitor and
their interactions with the resources, there is a genuine interest in outdoor
professionals. I find that I frequently respond by turning the conversation
back to the visitor and the opportunities that may exist for them as potential
park volunteers or seasonal employees. Honoring their interest in you as well
as providing them with potential opportunities is a good thing.
I could go on
with opening lines and visitor questions. I encourage you, the reader, to add
your own with some description of how they have been used successfully.
I propose that
we look carefully at constructivism and the training we need in order to put
this theory into practice. The constructivist approach to interpretation
presents many challenges. A main concern is that interacting with park visitors
in a constructivist fashion means giving up a certain level of control over the
experience. We don’t necessarily know where the interaction is going to take us. This is hard for many of us, but it can be
learned. Perhaps, if we had a deeper and more integrated knowledge of the
places we protect, our visitors, and the process of constructing knowledge and
meaning, we might be able to honor our visitors in a more respectful and
rigorous way while having greater chances of addressing our resource management
objectives and goals. As Mark Twain implores, we need to control our “tiresome
cackling,” listen to the visitors, and place them, once again, at the center of
our interactions with them in the nation’s most exceptional places. This may
bring us greater success.
The bottom line,
for me, is that informal or roving interpretation is, indeed, much less
presentational than formal offerings. It is about the visitor and their
interaction with the resources we are charged with protecting. It is not about
us. In this light, I am inspired by the words of Ansel Hall, the first Chief
Naturalist of the National Park System (1923-1930). He affixed the following to
the application form for park Ranger-Naturalist positions:
The
duties of Ranger Naturalist require a full day’s work each day—work entailing
continual contact with the public. If you are not absolutely certain that you
can maintain an attitude of enthusiasm and courtesy, please do not apply for
work of this sort.[13]
I hope this becomes a catalyst for dialogue. Please add your thoughts, comments, and insights.
References
[1] Twain, Mark. The
Innocents Abroad or, the New Pilgrims’ Progress. New York: The Modern
Library. 2003. (p. 127)
[2] Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting
Our Heritage. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 1957,
1967, 1977. (pp. 3-4)
[3] Grennon Brooks, Jacqueline and Martin G. Brooks. In
Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1993. (p. 15)
[4] Knapp, Doug. Applied Interpretation: Putting Research
Into Practice. Fort Collins: National Association for
Interpretation/interpPress. 2007. (p. 20)
[5] Knapp, Doug. Applied Interpretation: Putting Research
Into Practice. Fort Collins: National Association for
Interpretation/interpPress. 2007. (p. 20)
[6] Knapp, Doug. Applied Interpretation: Putting Research
Into Practice. Fort Collins: National Association for
Interpretation/interpPress. 2007. (p. 20)
[7] Knapp, Doug. Applied Interpretation: Putting Research
Into Practice. Fort Collins: National Association for
Interpretation/interpPress. 2007. (p. 74)
[8] Forist, Brian. Visitor
Use and Evaluation of Interpretive Media. Washington: National Park Service
Social Science Program. 2003. (p. 23)
[9] National Park Service. Servicewide Interpretive Report, FY 2010. Washington: United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2010.
[10] Forist, Brian. Visitor
Use and Evaluation of Interpretive Media. Washington: National Park Service
Social Science Program. 2003. (pp. 26-27)
[11] Grennon Brooks, Jacqueline and Martin G. Brooks. In
Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1993. (pp. 103-116)
[12] Williams, Terry Tempest. “In A Country of Grasses. An Unspoken Hunger: Notes from the Field.
New York: Knopf, 1995. (p. 3)
[13] Turner, Jack. Landscapes on Glass:
Lantern Slides for the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition,
Durango, Colorado: Durango Herald Small Press. 2010
