TILDEN-Forist-Knapp-PPT - National Association for Interpretation

Leaving Muir and Tilden Behind
Visitor-Centered Interpretation Through Dialogue
Brian Forist & Doug Knapp
Indiana University
National Association for Interpretation
Reno, Nevada
November 8, 2013
A Tale of Two Interpretive Programs
“I’ll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood,
storm, and avalanche. I’ll acquaint myself with the
glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of
the world as I can.” – John Muir
(Brockman, 1978)
“I am very, very blessed. The
Valley is full of people, but they
do not annoy me. I revolve in
pathless places and in higher
rocks than the world and his
ribbony wife can reach.” – John
Muir
(Engberg & Wesling, 1980)
Piloting the visitors about the valley
floor—for only the most daring
ventured higher—he watched in
vain the “blank fleshy apathy” of
their faces as they stolidly gazed at
the fall and the great rocks. Not a
gleam of awe or wonder disturbed
them—“finished and finite clods,
untroubled by a spark.”
(Wolfe, 1945)
“Any interpretation that does not somehow relate
what is being displayed or described to something
within the personality or experience of the visitor will
be sterile.” – Freeman TIlden
(Tilden, 1957/2007)
“A roster of the reasons why people
visit parks, museums, historic
houses, and similar preserves,
though a fascinating excursion into
human psychology, need not detain
us here. All interpreters know from
their experience that the reasons are
so many and diverse that merely to
name them all would take pages of
this book. I go upon the assumption
that whatever the reasons for
coming, the visitors are there.”
– Freeman Tilden
(Tilden, 1957/2007)
The Problem
The National Park Service’s interpretive approach
has tended to focus on fixed and final conclusions or
“themes” that are supposed to guide interpretation
over the long term. This approach has artificially
sequestered interpretation from the original openended experiences of historical actors, from
dynamic, ongoing patterns of scholarship, and from
engaging visitors with flexible, multiple perspectives
on interpretation…These dynamics predispose NPS
to underestimate visitors and view them as people to
be instructed rather than listened to and engaged.
(Whisnant, et al., 2011) The “instructed” rather than “engaged” approach has
been observed in a variety of studies that represented
both cultural and environmental interpretation.
Specifically, the interpreter offers messages to the
visitor with no attempt at receiving responses from the
participants. In observed walks, campfire programs, and
presentations visitors had few opportunities to offer
their own responses to interpretive messages.
(Knapp, 2007)
The lack of a two-way dialogue limited the actual
knowledge the interpreter could have regarding his/her
audience (i.e., emotional, cognitive, and/or physical
state at the time of the interpretive experience),
debilitating the chances for visitor connections.
(Knapp, 2007)
The National Park Service (NPS) Interpretive
Development Program (IDP) and National Association
for Interpretation (NAI) Certified Interpretive Guide
(CIG) program currently guide practice in the field.
While many consider them appropriate resources to
improve professional quality they base their pedagogy
on the traditional interpretive model of didactic
communication. This pedagogy attempts visitor
connections through predetermined themes and/or
objects that are presented by the guide to the visitor.
(Bourdeau 2002, Ham & Krumpe 1996, Knapp 2007, and Webb, 2000)
Interpreter
Message / Content
Tangibles
Intangibles
Themes
Universal meanings
Visitor
Figure 1: Traditional Interpretive Approach
(Knapp & Forist, in press: Forist & Knapp, 2013)
This “one-way” communication runs counter to
research suggesting that long-term impacts of visitor
experiences must be established through direct
connections with the visitor.
(Knapp, 2007)
We propose a new and innovative pedagogic approach
to interpretation that focuses on the visitor first then
moves on to the program content. It calls for a more
aggressive communiqué with visitors and the ability to
offer a range of information depending on where the
visitor is in relation to their knowledge and/or interest of
the subject.
It is based on a constructivist learning theory that
promotes interactions between the visitor and the
interpreter. They would engage in an active dialogue
with the programmer presenting information that
matches the visitor’s current state of understanding. The
interpreter would be a facilitator rather than an orator.
In essence it would be interpreting through dialogue.
The attitude of man [sic] is twofold in accordance
with the two basic words he [sic] can speak…basic
words are not single words but word pairs. One basic
word is the word pair I-You. The other basic word is
the word pair I-It…The basic word I-You can only be
spoken with one’s whole being. The basic word I-It
can never be spoken with one’s whole being.
(Buber, 1970)
Qualities of dialogue introduced by Buber and
elaborated by other scholars include:
-Presence
-Openness
-Mutuality
-Emergence
-Voice
(Black, 2005; Blenkensop, 2011; Isaacs, 2001; Montague, 2012)
Presence:
being genuine and fully engaged in the
specific interaction taking place
Openness: recognizing and accepting the genuine being
of the other person and understanding that the other is
fundamentally different from oneself
Emergence: understanding that the process and
outcomes of dialogue are not predetermined
Extraverted: marked by interest in and behavior
directed toward others or the environment as opposed
to or to the exclusion of self
Knowledgeable: well informed regarding the resource
site and the messages/content offered to the visitors
Interpretation Through Dialogue
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Introduction
Visitor Orientation
Connection Assessment
Content Delivery
Visitor Adjustments to Content
Final Articulation of Content
Introduction – This approach would necessitate a clear
and articulate overview of the message/content that the
interpreter would like to see covered. This should be
brief but to the point with no more than a few main
points to avoid overwhelming the visitors with too
much information.
Visitor Orientation – This phase would involve two
primary objectives. First, it would enable individuals
to offer information such as their names and
hometown. But, more importantly, it would enable
them to offer any immediate reaction/feedback related
to the message/content.
Connection Assessment – By far this phase of the
dialogue would be the most challenging. This would
occur “internally” through a wide range of approaches.
Throughout an interpretive experience, the interpreter
is constantly assessing and reassessing the trajectory of
the dialogue based on his/her active participation with
the visitors as they collectively come to understand the
resources through the visitors’ knowledge and inquiry.
Content Delivery – With the use of one or more of the
connection approaches the interpreter would then
deliver a clear and concise overview of the message/
content. As with any interpretive program, a variety of
techniques/styles could and should be used to develop
the topic. A dialogic approach may require preparation
of interpretive techniques and materials that may or
may not be utilized in any given program. This is
dependent on the visitors’ interests and the ways any
given technique can help to develop an associated
understanding.
Visitor Adjustments to Content – Ample time should
be allowed for visitors to ask questions, gain
clarification, or attempt to contribute to the content
delivered by the interpreter. Facilitation skills would
be needed to assure all questions are answered or at
least addressed.
Final Articulation of Content – This element would
give the opportunity for the interpreter to summarize
key points brought up in the dialogue. More
importantly, it would give the interpreter the final
opportunity to summarize key points related to the
message/content delivered. This would ensure specific
site goals would be met even if the dialogue had
“strayed” from the main points.
Interpreter
Visitor
Message / Content
Real life experiences
Connections to everyday life
Active delivery of content
Figure 2: Dialogic Interpretation
(Knapp & Forist, in press; Forist & Knapp, 2013)
“They talk forever and forever…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.” – Mark Twain
(Twain, 1869/2003)
References
• 
Black, L. W. (2005). Dialogue in the lecture hall: Teacher/student communication and students’ perceptions of their learning.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 31-40.
• 
Blenkensop, Sean. (2011). Martin Buber: Dialogue, relationship, the other, and the more-than- human world. In T. E. Smith &
C. E. Knapp (Eds.), Sourcebook of experiential education: Key thinkers and their contributions (pp. 48-55). New York, NY:
Routledge.
• 
Bourdeau, V. D. 2002. Informal learning environments. Legacy 13(1): 33-35.
• 
Brockman, C. Frank. (1978). Park naturalists and the evolution of National Park Service interpretation through World War II.
Journal of Forest History, 22(1), 24-43.
• 
Buber, Martin. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufman, Trans.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
• 
Engberg, Robert, & Wesling, Donald (Eds.). (1980). John Muir: To Yosemite and beyond: Writings from the years 1863 to
1875. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
• 
Forist, B., & Knapp, D. (2013). The use of dialogue to make visitor connections. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Visitor
Studies Association Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Poster Presentation.
• 
Ham, S., and Krumpe, E. E. 1996. Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental education: A theoretical
framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1(1): 11-23.
• 
Issacs, W. N. (2001). Toward an action theory of dialogue. International Journal of
Business Administration, 24(7&8),
709-748.
• 
Knapp, D.H. 2007. Applied interpretation: Putting research into practice. Ft. Collins: National Association of Interpretation.
• 
Knapp, D., & Forist, B. (in press). A new interpretive pedagogy. Journal of Interpretation Research.
• 
Larsen, D. L. . (2002). Be relevant or become a relic: Meeting the public where they are. Journal of Interpretation Research,
7(1), 17-20.
• 
Montague, R. R. (2012). Genuine dialogue: Relational accounts of moments of meeting. Western Journal of Communication,
76(4), 397-416.
• 
Tilden, F. (1957/2007). Interpreting our heritage (4th ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
• 
Twain, M. (1869/2003). The innocents abroad or, the new pilgrims' progress. New York: The Modern Library.
• 
Webb, R.C. 2000. The nature, role, and measurement of affect. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(2): 15-30.
• 
Whisnant, A. M., Miller, M. R., Nash, G. B., & Thelen, D. (2011). Imperiled promise: The state of history in the National Park
Service (pp. 146). Bloomington, IN: Organization of American Historians.
• 
Wolfe, Linnie Marsh. (1945). Son of the wilderness: The life of John Muir. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Park Interpretive Program Scenario #1
Visitors to a national park site arrived at the visitor center to join a ranger for the guided tour advertised on the park website for
10:00am that morning. An adaptation of the advertisement follows:
From Memorial Day to Labor Day, the park offers guided tours twice a day at the visitor center. Tours are every Friday, Saturday and
Sunday and begin at 10:00 am and also at 3:00 pm. Tours begin on the back patio and will progress into the main resource area.
Visitors are welcome to enjoy part of the tour at the patio or the entire tour through the area. Average tour times will vary, but you can
expect anywhere between 30 minutes to one hour with a Ranger.
Entering the building, the visitors were warmly and enthusiastically greeted by a cooperating association employee in the park
bookstore. They spoke with the bookstore manager, responding to his questions about where they were from and their interest in the
park. The visitors asked where they should meet for the ranger-guided tour. The bookstore manager turned to three rangers in the office
through the open doorway behind him and asked where the morning tour would begin. He was informed that there would only be a
tour at 3:00pm that day. The bookstore manager noted that there was an announcement regarding the 10:00am tour on the park website
as well as on the front door of the visitor center. After a moment of bickering between the rangers, one reluctantly shrugged and said,
“I’ll do it.” The visitors were told where to meet the ranger.
The visitors joined another party on the visitor center patio. All were looking outward at the spectacular scenery visible from the patio.
A moment later, the park ranger arrived, carrying a knapsack and a thick sheaf of laminated images. The ranger stood against the brick
wall of the building where she could easily lean her knapsack. She began speaking as she arrived. “Today I am going to do something
different.” She announced that the park offers guided canoe trips on select Saturdays that allow visitors to see some of the park’s
outlying sites. She began flipping back and forth through the sheaf of images, showing maps of the outlying sites and talking about
what can be seen during the canoe trips. On occasion she would mention some of the features the park is known for, find a picture, and
state how interesting the ones are at these outlying sites She would often follow with the statement, “you can’t see them from here.”
The visitors assembled were focused on the ranger and the brick wall, though they would frequently look behind them to the famed
park resources just over their shoulders. Once or twice, during the talk, the ranger mentioned one or another of the features in the
adjacent park site and would follow her statement about them with, “I can’t see that from where I’m standing, though.” For twenty
minutes, the ranger talked, showing pictures, maps, and referring to the experience visitors could have during the Saturday canoe trip.
The visitors assembled did not ask any questions and the ranger asked no questions of them. When the talk was completed, the ranger
left the site. The visitors then went to explore the area of the park on their own.
Park Interpretive Program Scenario #2
Visitors to a national park site have arrived at the patio of the visitor center attend a 25-minute talk advertised in the park newspaper with the
following: "Uncover the geologic story behind the striking scenery." As the visitors were arriving, a park ranger was there to greet them,
chatting casually about the park and asking about their travels from homes far and wide. The ranger was also listening to their exclamations
about the sites they were seeing. At the edge of the patio were a “white board” and a cart with rock samples, a globe, dinosaur footprints,
geologic maps, a few books, and drawings of ancient environments, among other potential props.
At the appointed time for the talk, the ranger moves to the edge of the patio where the white board is placed (so as not to obstruct the view)
and offers an introduction and formal welcome to the visitors assembled there. After discovering where each visitor or visitor party is from
and asking them briefly abut the national park nearest to their homes, the park ranger begins the talk.
We are here today to talk about the park’s geology, to “uncover the geologic story behind the striking scenery” as the park newspaper states.
It is a pretty stunning place, don’t you think? The reality is that I have gathered you all here to help guide what we will talk about together. If
you are like me, whenever you encounter a new place, or see a place as grand and exciting as this you have some questions. As a matter of
fact, I have already talked with a few of you and learned some of your questions about the geology here. Here are a couple of them.
At this point, the ranger writes one or two questions on the white board, checking with the visitors who had posed those questions during the
informal arrival time to make sure he has accurately reflected their interests. He then asks the full group to share their questions about the
rocks before them, again clarifying to make sure he accurately gets at what they want to know. He then promises that over the next 20
minutes each of those questions will be addressed. However, he states, “I get to choose the order in which the questions are answered.”
The ensuing 20 minutes are filled with an active conversation about the geology of the park, based on the visitors’ interests and the park
ranger’s science-based knowledge of the area. A variety of props are utilized as appropriate: a globe and ancient environment drawings to aid
in the discussion of plate tectonics; a toy dinosaur, modeling clay, and an actual cast of a dinosaur footprint from the park to illustrate
something about what lived those ancient environments; rock samples to help visitors understand the composition of different geologic
formations in front of them. Throughout the talk, visitors ask clarifying questions while the ranger poses additional questions of the
assembled visitors to help them discover answers on their own.
The ranger concludes by sharing language from the initial legislation designating the park. It speaks of the significance of geologic features
as worthy of protection. He states that knowing about the geology can enhance all of our experiences of this special place, that the rocks are
the stage upon which we experience every aspect of the park. He concludes as he encourages the visitors to continue asking questions and
learning as they enjoy the park safely. Visitors linger, asking additional questions, sharing stories, and investigating the various props on
hand. Everyone seems to depart with satisfied looks on their faces.