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