Friday, November 11, 2011

The Roving Constructivist: Applying Theory to Practice

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

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Twelve (Plus Seven) Great Things About the Archeology Trail at Zion National Park

I have been working as an interpretive park ranger at Zion National Park for a bit more than three months now. During my time here I have hiked all of the "frontcountry" trails as a way of getting to know this amazing place and to be able to pass on accurate information to our visitors. Hikes on Zion's trails range from thirty-minute strolls to multi-day backpacking trips. Each trail offers a different experience to the visitors, and provides unique ways to discover Zion’s many wonders.

I recently hiked the one trail I had yet to see. It is a very short trail that leaves from the Zion Canyon Visitor Center. There was, I believe, a reason it took me three months to finally hike the Archeology Trail.


Archeology Trail Trailhead Sign

I had been given no encouragement to venture onto the Archeology Trail. Instead, I was actively discouraged from using the trail by a number of my co-workers. I was told that it was not very interesting, it was shadeless and hot, it was not scenic, and it was boring. I got the distinct impression that the perceived trouble with Zion’s Archeology Trail for many of the park’s rangers was much the same as Gertrude Stein's trouble with Oakland—a feeling that “there is no there there.” As a case in point, when getting ready to hike the Archeology Trail earlier this week in order to photograph the sights, a co-worker asked where I was headed and upon learning where I was going responded with a simple, “why?” Others had recommended against this trail and I found myself occasionally doing the same while on duty at the Visitor Center. I told visitors it was not a very interesting trail, hoping I would not have to admit that I had not even set foot on it.


I have always had misgivings about blindly editorializing for park visitors, imposing our own and often-unfounded value statements on them. I have also found it difficult when fellow workers discount visitors and the places they express interest in, acting as if parks were set aside solely for those of us who work in them. When I worked in Ross Lake National Recreation Area/North Cascades National Park Complex many years ago, some of my co-workers informed me that the park was really a “ranger playground” and that visitors were often an inconvenience at best. That notion never sat well with me and I have since been a vocal defender of the range of experiences park visitors have, whether it is one framed by a car window or one had while exploring true wilderness. Each of these, and all experiences in between,  are valid, can be deeply meaningful, and are sometimes transformative.

I am currently reading a lovely book called Landscapes on Glass: Lantern Slides for the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition which documents a photographic expedition in the American southwest, investigating potential additions to the National Park System. The 1930s expedition was led by Ansel Hall, the first Chief Naturalist of the National Park Service (NPS). In the short introductory biography of Hall, it was noted that the following preface was included on the application form filed by prospective NPS employees. “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.” I am a strong proponent of both enthusiasm and courtesy. I also deeply believe that a positive attitude and an expectation of plenty will bring each of us far more joy than the alternative. Changing our attitude can change our organizational culture in a way that will allow us to provide a far better experience for our visitors. If I were hiring Ranger Naturalists in Hall's day (or today, for that matter), I would also add that the applicant's cup needs to be half full, if not more.

I have hiked the Archeology Trail three times, now, in a week. With each short ascent I have discovered new wonders. It is out of respect for this place called Zion and the experience of our visitors, and in honor of Ansel Hall’s attitude of enthusiasm and courtesy that I offer to you, my readers and colleagues:


"Twelve Great Things About the Archeology Trail at Zion National Park"



Great Thing #1: The Archeology Trail increases the use of one’s imagination. The initial purpose behind the Archeology Trail was to provide access to an excavated archeological site. Though little evidence of Ancestral Puebloan life approximately 1,000 years ago exists, one can hike the trail with an open mind, imagining what life may have been like for the earlier residents of the area. Archeologists excavating the site found two storage rooms, three storage cists, two fire hearths, stone tools for grinding and other types of food processing, and 11 different styles of prehistoric ceramics. The Zion National Park museum collection contains more than 1,600 artifacts from this site.


Storage Shelter Interpretive Panel

Belden Lewis, a twenty-year old enrollee in the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at Zion kept a diary during much of his first year here. He provides a wonderful example of using his imagination and observational skills while visiting an archeological site. On Sunday August 26, 1934, less than a month after his arrival at Zion, he visited the “Boy Scout Granary” along the Floor of the Valley Road by the Great White Throne overlook. Following is his diary entry for that day.

            Sunday August 26—
I went swimming today! Up at lower & upper emerald pools. Oh for fancy! Lower pool not so hot. In fact it’s damn cold. But the environment is enticing & the water fall is cute. Upper pool is the best with the prettiest scenery & the cutest pool. I went on up past Angel’s landing & saw that cliff dwelling. I crawled into it & imagined myself as an ancient man! It is a hut 7 ft. long X 4 ft. wide X 3-1/2 ft. high with a hole 1-1/2 ft. X 2 ft. for a door. The floor is rough natural stone. A good view of Great White Throne can be seen through the door. Well, I got home in plenty time for a good supper, after which I washed some clothes…If I had some mail, this would have been a perfect day.

Like Lewis, people hiking the Archeology Trail can not only make similarly keen observations, they too can imagine themselves as ancient children, women, and men.

Outline of Grain Storage Structure

Great Thing #2: The Archeology Trail provides an opportunity to understand the challenges an archeologist faces and a true picture of the kind of scene an archeologist is first presented with. Archeologists do not simply happen upon a scene that tells a complete story about past ways of life. By carefully locating, cataloging, and examining artifacts as well as studying the context in which they were found, archeologists focus on the relationship between material objects on one hand and the makers' behavior on the other. As primary goals, archeologists set out to construct a chronology of the past, understand ways of life that no longer exist, and come to an understanding of how and why human culture has changed over time. This work is most often done with no written record as a guide. The site atop the Archeology Trail is the type of blank canvas that archeologists often first encounter. It is clear that they must depend on their scientific methods and skills as well as a bit of imagination to piece together the story from the area examined. Knowing about the challenges faced by archeologists can allow us to become better interpreters of archeology, more accurately and compellingly telling the stories of such sites.

Great Thing #3: The Archeology Trail gives the visitor a chance to imagine why the site was chosen by the Ancestral Puebloan people for a food processing and storage area. The site atop the Archeology Trail is a logical location to prepare and store food. The small promontory is well above the flood level of the Virgin River. This makes the site ideal for storing of food. There is no threat of food supplies being damaged or lost to the frequent floods experienced just feet below. The small rise also elevates the site above the surrounding area, affording a nice breeze. This could have been helpful in drying food for storage.The 360 degree view also allowed those using the site to see any potential threats to the food supply, be it environmental or otherwise. 

Great Thing #4: The Archeology Trail provides visitors with an opportunity to learn about the challenges of preserving cultural resources. The archeological site interpreted atop the Archeology Trail at Zion is a "stabilized" site. This means it has been excavated and then filled in. It leaves little to actually see. This method, however, is the best way to protect the resource from erosion and illegal collection. The site along the Archeology Trail has the lowest level of protection, in which visitors area not only allowed, but welcome to visit and explore, and learn. There are other sites within Zion with greater protection thus limited or no access allowed. In this case, the knowledge of the site sits in reports. It is our challenge to acquire that knowledge so as to relay it to interested visitors. The site also offers a great lesson in resource protection in what is not there as much as in what was found there.


Rock Rubble in Food Storage Site


Great Thing #5: The Archeology Trail provides outstanding views both up and down Zion Canyon. Ending on a lovely rise above the canyon floor and a good distance from the east canyon wall, the Archeology Trail offers unobstructed views to the north (up canyon) and south (down canyon). Enough said!


Looking Up Zion Canyon

View to the South


Great Thing #6: The Archeology Trail looks over the park shuttle bus system garage, allowing visitors a behind-the-scenes look at a seamless operation as well as the interactions between park resources and infrastructure. The “Watchman Site” was an Ancestral Puebloan food storage location threatened by construction of the park shuttle bus facility. A thorough survey of the site was completed prior to the construction of the bus garage and staging area and subsequent implementation of the Zion's shuttle bus system. The proximity of the Archeology Trail to the shuttle bus facility and the fact that the bus garage, parking area, and fuel tank are all visible from the trail illustrates the tension between resource protection and providing facilities and infrastructure for visitor enjoyment. This is the tension at the very heart of NPS activities since, at least, the passage of our Organic Act in 1916. The shuttle bus system in Zion provides for the enjoyment of the park by current and future generations of visitors. The shuttle system itself was designed to increase the quality of the visitor experience while protecting park resources. The survey and excavation of the site atop the Archeology Trail and adjacent cultural areas prior to construction of the bus facility was part of the NPS effort to leave the resources of the park unimpaired. The view of the shuttle bus facility from the Archeology Trail brings the tension front and center. We can not ignore it nor be lulled into thinking that problems are solved magically. The trail helps to illustrate concessions made to protect resources in an unimpaired state while also providing for visitor enjoyment. Nothing hides here. This, I think, is a good thing. There is no wizard behind the curtain to ignore.


Park Shuttle Bus Facility

Great Thing #7: The Archeology Trail is a great place to look over the lower section of Zion Canyon and understand the process of canyon widening. The process of canyon widening takes place in Zion, primarily where the Virgin River has carved through the massive cliff-forming Navajo Sandstone into the softer layers of the Kayenta and Moenave formations below. The erosive potential of the river is extreme in the softer lower layers of mudstone, siltstone, and clay. As the river undercut into the Kayenta and Moenave, the Navajo was no longer supported and collapsed, widening the canyon dramatically. This wide canyon can be easily seen from the Archeology Trail.


Wide Canyon and Watchman Campground


Great Thing #8: The Archeology Trail provides an outstanding view of the Moenave, Kayenta (including the Springdale Sandstone), Navajo, and Temple Cap geologic formations. From the top of the Archeology Trail, one is afforded an opportunity to see all of the rock layers exposed in the lower section of Zion Canyon, representing about 200 million years of sedimentation. The Archeology Trail itself is entirely within the Moenave formation, a mixture of siltstone and sandstone forming the lower slopes in the area around the Zion Canyon Visitor Center. 


Layered Geologic Formations

The Archeology Trail itself is entirely within the Moenave formation, a mixture of siltstone and sandstone forming the lower slopes in the area around the Zion Canyon Visitor Center. From the trail, one can see the Springdale Sandstone, the lower, riverbed sediment member of the Kayenta formation. This is the short cliff-forming material that one ascends when walking to the top of the nearby Watchman Trail. The Springdale is also seen well in all directions from the Archeology Trail.


Watchman Trail Mesa of Springdale Sandstone

Above the Springdale Sandstone, the remaining slope-forming Kayenta formation is clearly visible. The Kayenta is made up of muddy flood plain deposits. The dramatic high cliffs of Zion so evident from the Archeology Trail are the Navajo Sandstone, the lithified remains of the world's largest erg or sand dune desert. Topping the geologic layer cake is the red or pink Temple Cap formation, laid down in a combination of marine and nearshore sand dune environments. All of these marvelous geologic formations can be seen and well-understood from the Archeology Trail.

Great Thing #9: The Archeology Trail is a good vantage point from which to see the riparian zone in relation to other areas in the canyon. Gazing at the floor of Zion Canyon from the high point on the Archeology Trail, one can clearly see the course of the Virgin River, lined primarily by Fremont cottonwood trees. Cottonwoods will grow only in the riparian corridor or other areas with a ready supply of water. They are easy to distinguish from this vantage point, with their somewhat silvery and shiny appearance in summer, and their leaves that flutter in even the slightest wind. One can see how lush the riparian zone is and can compare it with the drier, more sparsely vegetated uplands visible from the trail’s promontory.


Riparian Zone and Zion Canyon


Great Thing #10: The Archeology Trail ends on a small rise above the canyon floor and is often refreshingly breezy. Though only eighty feet above the floor of Zion Canyon, the small terrace atop the Archeology Trail is high enough to frequently offer a nice breeze. While the air on the canyon floor can seem extremely still, the wind at the high point of the trail can be very refreshing. This breeze may have played a role in the selection of the site by the Ancestral Puebloan people. It may have aided in the drying of grain and other foods stored there and kept damaging insects at bay.


Promontory As Seen From Below


Great Thing #11: The Archeology Trail is a short walk that offers excellent views of sunrise and sunset. Many, many visitors to Zion want to know the best place to see sunrise and sunset. This can be problematic in that Zion Canyon runs primarily north and south. The enormous sandstone cliffs often mask the comings and goings of the sun. As it turns out, the promontory on the Archeology Trail affords one a lovely view of sunrise and sunset. 


Fading Light on the Watchman

As the sun begins to drop behind the canyon walls to the west, fading light can be seen on the features on the eastern side of the canyon such as the Watchman. As the sun continues its descent into the western sky unique shadows are cast across Zion Canyon.


Canyon Wall Shadow on Bridge Mountain

Great Thing #12: The AT&T cell phone signal is pretty good from the top of the Archeology Trail. The importance here may be very selfish, but with a strong signal it means that while on the Archeology Trail I could more reliably communicate with you than is possible anywhere else on the canyon floor. I might even be able to send you a picture by text or successfully post to Facebook. I have had a number of visitors approach me asking where they can get an AT&T signal. Now I have a good, and positive answer.


Your Author's Cell Phone Photo

Singing the praises of the Archeology Trail at Zion has been a beneficial exercise. On one hand, it is classic bforist behavior, advocating on behalf of the proverbial underdog. More importantly, it has caused me to experience and therefore think of the site in a very different light. I am hopeful that I can draw others into the exercise. I am certain that there are sites in the parks and protected areas where my friends and colleagues work that are, like the Archeology Trail, the perceived ugly step-children of the park. When we take the time to get to know the sites, we understand it very differently and are then able to share it joyfully with our visitors.

I invite you to join in the conversation, sharing your own thoughts about Zion's Archeology Trail, a similar site where you work, and the transformative ways those sites can creep into our consciousness.

**********************************************************************************
The post above was written to accompany a temporary display in the new "Naturalist's Corner" in the interpretation office at Zion National Park. The Naturalist's Corner was initiated this year as a way to engage in on-going education as a staff. I have been given the responsibility for it during the months of July and August. I chose to focus on the Archeology Trail for the reasons described above. Included in the display was a blank sheet titled "More Great Things About the Archeology Trail. My colleagues added seven more items to my initial twelve.

Below are Seven More Great Things About the Archeology Trail at Zion National Park and, in some cases, my comments.

Great Thing #13: The Archeology Trail provides visitors an opportunity to route find on a safe, small scale.
 --Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: I think that the Archeology Trail also provides us, as park rangers, with a great opportunity to assist visitors in route finding. The true art is in describing how exactly to find the trailhead. Perhaps I need to commit myself to creating pictures which might help. We have also bandied around the idea of painting animal tracks on the sidewalk and parking area at the Zion Canyon Visitor Center, with a different species directing people to each of the trails that radiate from there. Perhaps bare human footprints or yucca sandals would be the appropriate symbol directing visitors to the Archeology Trail. The trailhead is immediately to the east of the only entrance to the main Zion Canyon Visitor Center parking lot. From the stop sign at the lot entrance, you will need to cross the lane and walk about 50 feet to the right. You will then see the sign marking the beginning of the trail. Alternatively, as you approach the entrance of the Zion Canyon Visitor Center parking lot from within, you will see a yield sign on the right. There is a small trail to the right of the yield sign that takes you directly to the Archeology Trail trailhead.]


Zion Canyon Visitor Center Parking Lot Yield Sign
and Archeology Trail Trailhead

Great Thing #14: The Archeology Trail provides me with the opportunity to change my attitude about the Archeology Trail (I'm thinking about it, at least). 
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: Exactly my point! We all have attitudes that can, and often should change. As I have hoped to help my colleagues in that process, I welcome them to help me in myriad ways. Through collegial discussion we can all challenge our assumptions, change our attitudes, and strive for excellence in our work. By doing so we can better protect the resources we are charged with AND serve our visitors well.]

Great Thing #15: The Archeology Trail takes interpretation for visitors to discover the points raised. Perhaps we need more interpretation up there. This would make a good interpretive writing assignment for someone. As well--perhaps a rove.
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: Great Thing #15 originally suggested that I might provide some in-service training or be the one responsible for a potential interpretive writing assignment, etc. That portion of the "Great Thing" was crossed out with an "oops, sorry!" added. I am hopeful that said Anonymous Park Ranger reads the blog.]

Great Thing #16: As relating to #13: having an experience of route finding may help us connect to peoples of the past and their experience of exploring new places because they, of course, had no trails. ==actually, they did use trails that they and their forbearers would use note "Moqui Steps! 
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: For information on what may have been the most sophisticated set of trails and roads from Ancestral Puebloan culture, check out information on the Chacoan Roads on the website of Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

Moqui steps are steps carved into rock by Ancestral Puebloan peoples along the many trails and roads they used.]


Moqui Step at Hovenweep National Monument

Great Thing #17: It reminds us how cultures are dynamic, flux & change, and WE weren't & aren't the only way it's ever been. It allows us to realize the choices we make actually are choices--culture is so arbitrary. That means we can make better choices about how we live. 
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: If our cultures change and we can make better choices, then we can also make better choices in order to change our culture: in how we interpret park resources and serve visitors. The National Park Service (NPS) is an agency with a very strong and significant institutional culture. I mentioned the cultural notion of "ranger playgrounds" earlier in this post. Similarly, I can not tell you how often I have heard rangers joking about the visitors, and the times I have willingly joined in. I have been making a conscious choice lately to step out of any conversation that makes fun of or is derogatory toward park visitors, and when appropriate, calling such behavior out. I find this disrespectful behavior quite offensive. It does not truly provide comic relief. This is part of our culture that simply must change. Similarly, giving visitors advice as if we were speaking in a mirror does not truly serve the visitor. We have visitors with a full range of interests, abilities, and previous experiences. We truly honor the visitors and the park resources we deeply care for when we take a moment to step outside ourselves, try to truly hear the visitors, and provide information and advice for THEM, not ourselves. Indeed, culture can change.]

Great Thing #18: This trail provides a good view of the new "temporary" parking lot which reminds me of two things: one, Edward Abbey's rage over development in National Parks and, two, Joni Mitchell's paving over paradise. This reminds me of the fundamental we, as park service staff, are here--to keep these beautiful places from being turned into fields of asphalt. 
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: Amen!]

Great Thing #19: You can wear your favorite outfit and hiking shoes on this trail. 
--Anonymous Zion National Park Ranger

[Author's note: Well, I have to say that this one took me by surprise. It is my hope that the reference to a favorite outfit and hiking shoes implies that "you," meaning the "royal we," can head onto the Archeology Trail in uniform as part of our regular roving duties. By doing so, we are all presented with opportunities to interact with the place and our visitors in a positive way. I am a firm believer in being out where the visitors are. Knowing that a minority of park visitors participate in ranger-guided activities, I believe that the informal contacts on the trails are often the only opportunity a visitor might have to ask questions and interact with a ranger.

I must add, though, that this "Great Thing #19" could be a reference to one of the historic National Park Service  uniforms. I recall sharing a story (emphasis on STORY) with some of my co-workers here at Zion about said uniform, a wannabe park ranger doing archival NPS photograph work in Charles Town, West Virginia, in the very same room where the historic uniforms are stored, an unlocked storage chamber, shall we say, "interpretive dance," and an unknown (to your author, at least) security camera. On this matter, I am confused about the truth. Nonetheless, someone in that outfit on the Archeology Trail would be very snappy!]


NPS Harpers Ferry Center Historic Photo #001064