Abstract
In the past decade, the National Park Service (NPS) has shifted interpreter training to focus on an audience-centered approach to program delivery and development. One element of this approach emphasizes empowering audience members to share their own thoughts and experiences with each other to develop or reveal deeper meaning together. However, the extent to which visitors want this new style of program is uncertain. Through survey research at nine diverse NPS sites, this study provides insight into NPS visitors’ interest in attending programs that ask them to share their own ideas openly and/or listen to the ideas of other visitors during programs. Results from the 1,990 respondents suggest that visitors across the demographic spectrum (gender, age, visitation, race/ethnicity, and geographic origin) preferred more traditional programming over programs in which visitors share their own ideas. This paper discusses practical and theoretical implications of these findings, as well as opportunities for future research.
Introduction
Interpretive programs have been an integral component of the National Park Service (NPS) since its establishment in 1916. Stephen Mather, the first director of the agency, fought for NPS sites to be places of both recreational opportunities and educational experiences (Makintosh, 1986). In May of 2010, NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis reiterated the agency’s commitment to education, stating it as a “primary responsibility” of the NPS (United States Departments of the Interior, 2010). Additionally, the NPS Centennial Act further codified education as a distinct part of the mission of the NPS in 2016 (National Park Service Centennial Act, 2016). As such, interpretation has become a staple of park operations. As the field of interpretation has evolved, different philosophies have emerged on the “best” approach to developing and providing an interpretive experience.
In the mid 1990s, the NPS launched the Interpretive Development Program (IDP), which defined interpretation as a method of communication intended to reveal the meanings embedded in park resources and histories to educate the visiting public (NPS, 2003). The IDP established a standardized framework of competencies for interpretive rangers and other NPS professionals (NPS, 2023). These competencies encompassed a broad range of elements, including resource knowledge, interpretive writing, and the development of interpretive talks (NPS, 2003). Under the IDP, the goal of interpretive experiences was to create meaningful connections between the audience and the resource. By presenting information in compelling and entertaining ways, interpreters aimed to deepen visitors’ understanding of park resources and foster a sense of stewardship (Interpretive Development Program [IDP], 2008; Larsen, 2002; NPS, 2003). To achieve this, interpreters relied on foundational principles such as storytelling, the development of a central theme, the inclusion of universal concepts, provocation, and relevance to the audience (S. H. Ham, 1992; S. Ham, 2013; IDP, 2008; Tilden, 1957). In this role, interpreters served as both storytellers and facilitators of meaning, helping visitors see the significance of the resource in ways that resonated with them personally.
This model of interpretation has been shown to be associated with positive audience outcomes in live interpretive programming, such as enhancement of understanding and appreciation of park resources (e.g., Stern & Powell, 2013), enhancement of visitors’ overall experience at park sites (e.g., Stern & Powell, 2013; Moscardo, 1999), and encouragement of stewardship behaviors (e.g., Powell et al, 2009; S. H. Ham, 2009). However, strategic goals created in 2014 (NPS, 2014a), as well as newer NPS training materials (National Park Service Advisory Board Education Committee, 2014b), suggest that modern audiences may desire a different type of interpretive experience where meanings and experiences are co-created.
In an effort to modernize interpretive practices and better serve contemporary audiences, the NPS began experimenting with and promulgating dialogic techniques, such as facilitated dialogue (e.g., Williams et al., 2018). As this experimentation evolved, the NPS introduced what it called an “audience-centered experience” (ACE) approach, a dynamic interpretive style that encourages audience members to actively participate by sharing their lived experiences, thoughts, stories, and perspectives with others (NPS, 2019). According to NPS training materials (2023), today’s visitors seek more personalized experiences that foster deeper connections, not just to the site itself, but also to the people around them (Dilenschneider, 2015). The goal is to create engaging, meaningful experiences that allow visitors to form their own unique connections to the site through active sharing and listening to different perspectives (NPS, 2023). Within this approach exists a spectrum of ideas that define what an ACE interpretive experience entails. These ideas range from incorporating simple engagement activities, such as hand raising or open-ended questioning, to facilitating a discussion centered around a challenging, potentially controversial, or “sticky,” topic (NPS, 2023). While there are many elements incorporated into ACE training, some distinguishing features include:
Audiences are invited to grapple with a “sticky” problem (i.e., a relevant societal or environmental issue);
Audiences are encouraged to share their lived experiences, including personal opinions, ideas, thoughts, or experiences;
Audiences create their own personal meaning for the site and its resources (NPS, 2023).
There are many similarities between the IDP, or traditional model of interpretation and the ACE model. Both incorporate elements of provocation, relevance, and engagement as ways to inspire personal meaning-making. Interpreters have always had the option of their providing their own meanings through their storytelling or leaving the meaning open ended for audiences to determine themselves, similar to other storytelling experiences like watching a movie or reading a book (S. Ham, 2013). ACE interpretation highlights opportunities for the audience to provide interpretive content to a program in the form of their lived experiences, stories, or beliefs. This research focuses on the nature of this sharing and distinguishes between what we call interpreter-driven interpretation, and audience-driven interpretation.
Audience-driven interpretation lies at the far end of the participatory spectrum of ACE experiences. These experiences operate under the assumption that NPS audiences are actively seeking out opportunities to engage with others, share their experiences and perspectives, and contemplate challenging, possibly uncomfortable, topics during interpretive programs. Research on motivations for visiting free-choice learning sites, such as parks, museums, zoos, or aquariums, indicates that socially motivated visitors may be looking for opportunities to engage with others, be it the group they are traveling with, other visitors, or site staff (Falk, 2016J. ; Moussouri, 1997; Packer & Ballantyne, 2002; Pekarik et al., 1999). As such, these visitors may be more interested in attending programs that facilitate opportunities to engage with other visitors and listen to their perspectives.
On the other hand, literature also indicates that there may be visitors who are not seeking these opportunities. Packer and Ballantyne (2002) and J. Falk (2016) identified groups of visitors who are seeking opportunities for passive enjoyment or restoration. It is possible that these visitors would be more inclined to attend a program where they could relax and more passively take in information. For example, Stern et al. (2011) found that visitors’ primary motivations for attending an interpretive program included an interest in being entertained, the idea of seeing something they might otherwise miss, providing a good experience for their group, and an interest in learning something new. Williams et al. (2018) found that programs advertised as being highly participatory were less attended than those advertised as a more interpreter-driven style of program. Additionally, Merson et al. (2022) found that many interpreters who attempted to introduce two-way communication into their programs often faced resistance from audience members. Some interpreters in their study successfully navigated these challenges by shifting their approaches to more interpreter-driven strategies when audiences resisted (Merson et al., 2022). In a survey of 168 visitors from Grand Teton National Park, Williams and Darville (2017) reported that 56% of visitors who had attended both an interpreter-driven program and a conversational, or audience-driven-styled program preferred the interpreter-driven program, while 44% preferred the conversational program. When asked how much audience conversation they prefer during interpretive programs, roughly 17% indicated “very little,” about 65% said “some,” 16% said “quite a bit” and about 2% indicated “a great deal” (Williams & Darville, 2017).
While there is little empirical evidence suggesting that NPS visitors as a whole are interested in audience-driven, participatory programming, there is evidence suggesting that this program style preference may differ between groups of people. Literature indicates that the motivations and desires of returning visitors are often different from those of first-time visitors due to familiarity with the site, interest in educational opportunities, and/or their level of interest in social experiences (Balling & Falk, 1980; J. H. Falk, 1983; Morse, 1977; Moscardo, 1999; Mullins, 1979). Similarly, research suggests that adults will adjust their behavior to accommodate the children in their group (McManus, 1987, 1988; Moscardo, 1999), which indicates that the visitor’s social group may also influence their desired type of program. Stern et al. (2011) found that primary motivations for attending interpretive programs differed between local visitors (those residing within a 1-hr drive time from the park entrance) and non-local visitors, suggesting that there may be a difference in program-style preference as well for local and non-local residents. Finally, a visitor’s demographics and cultural background may also influence program preference, as different group identities may have different preferred styles of learning (Caro & Ewert, 1995; J. H. Falk, 1995; Irving, 1986; Lee et al., 1995).
Theoretical Support for Audience-Driven Interpretation
Social constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1962) supports the implementation of an audience-driven approach, particularly its emphasis on interpersonal engagement to foster personal meaning making. Social constructivism focuses on the role of social interactions and cultural contexts in the construction of knowledge and understanding (Kim, 2001; McMahon, 1997). The theory posits that individuals do not acquire knowledge in isolation but rather through active engagement with their social and cultural environment (Bruner, 1966; Kukla, 2000; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). According to Roth and Lucas (1997), understanding others and constructing knowledge at a social level enables learners to establish connections with their surroundings and make sense of their experiences, thus leading to more meaningful interactions and understandings. Rannikmae et al. (2020) identified the following aspects of social constructivism within the context of teaching and learning:
Knowledge is not derived solely from the external world nor the individual. Rather it is the result of internal connections derived from external interactions (Schunk, 2012).
Learning is grounded in real-life experiences occurring within a social context through shared experiences and discussions. New ideas are compared to existing knowledge and learners adapt their cognitive frameworks to make sense of the world. Learning is seen as an active, socially engaged process, not merely a passive response to external directives (Wertsch, 1997).
Reality is not discovered but constantly constructed through human activity, with societies collectively shaping their understanding of the world (Kukla, 2000).
Audience-driven interpretation facilitates social learning by providing audiences with opportunities to interact and share with each other within the shared experience of visiting the same NPS site or participating in the same program. This theoretically may enhance interpersonal interactions between participants and provoke personal meaning making.
The second component of personal meaning-making that distinguishes NPS audience-driven interpretation training from prior training on interpretation is grappling with a “sticky” problem. Ideally, by connecting the resource to a contemporary societal or environmental issue and inviting participants to share their perspectives or experiences on thsue, audiences will be provoked to critically reflect on their prior assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives. This theoretically may result in individuals undergoing some form of personal transformation that expands their worldview and understanding of others (NPS, 2019). This process can be tied to the ideas of transformative learning. Transformative learning occurs as individuals engage in critical reflection of their preconceived beliefs or viewpoints when confronted with disorienting dilemmas or life-changing events (Mezirow, 1991). In interpretive programs, this can take the form of provocation surrounding a topic, or, in the case of audience-driven programs, discussion surrounding a “sticky” problem. Through reflection, the individual may undergo a process of personal change where their perspectives of the world are fundamentally transformed to become more inclusive (Mezirow, 1991, 1994). Within the field of tourism, transformative learning principles have been applied to foster deep connections between people and places (Reisinger, 2013). Transformative tourism goes beyond conventional notions of leisure and sightseeing and instead focuses on personal growth, self-discovery, and positive change through engagement with novel concepts and experiences (Bueddefeld & Duerden, 2022; Soulard et al, 2019; Wolf et al., 2017).
Within the context of visitors to U.S. National Parks, it is unclear the extent to which visitors are open to audience-driven interpretation. This study examines visitor preferences for audience-driven versus more interpreter-driven programs at nine National Park Service sites in the U.S.
Methods
To examine the preferences of NPS visitors, we conducted survey research at nine units of the U.S. National Park Service from May 2024 to August 2024. The surveys solicited visitors’ preferences for different styles of interpretation meant to reflect the participatory, personal sharing style of audience-driven programs and more interpreter-driven forms of interpretation. Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board reviewed all procedures described above and below prior to data collection and determined that procedures were Exempt (Protocol #24-452).
Site Selection
Nine sites were selected for this study (Table 1). Selected sites were chosen to maximize the diversity of NPS visitors and contexts based upon resource focus (cultural or natural), geographic location, and annual visitation. Parks were categorized as urban, urban-proximate, or remote. Metropolitan areas were defined as having an urban core of at least 50,000 residents. Urban parks were located within the limits of these metropolitan areas. Urban-proximate parks were located outside these cores, but within a 60-mile radius of these areas. As such, they were typically in rural or suburban areas. Remote parks were located at least 60 miles from any metropolitan area.
Sites Selected for This Study.
Annual visitation from 2024 (irma.nps.gov/Portal).
Visitor Surveys
We conducted a survey of visitors at each site to gage interest in ACE/audience-driven-styled programs that involve personal sharing compared to interpreter-driven programs. The surveys asked visitors to indicate their level of interest in six possible interpretive program experiences by checking a box indicating their likelihood of attendance on a four-point scale (1 – definitely not, 2 – probably not, 3 – probably yes, 4 – definitely yes). Three experiences were consistent with interpreter-driven-styled program, and three were consistent with an ACE/audience-driven-styled program (Table 2). Items were developed through extensive literature review of interpretive texts and NPS training materials and publications.
Visitor survey items.
Note. Parenthetical references were not included in the actual survey.
To explore if visitor opinions differed based on their personal experiences, identities, or contexts, the survey also collected data on previous program attendance (Stern et al., 2011), demographics (age, gender, race) (Caro & Ewert, 1995; J. H. Falk, 1995; Irving, 1986; Lee et al., 1995), visitation group (alone, with others including children, with others not including children) (Stern et al., 2011; Hood, 1989; McManus, 1987, 1988), if they had visited the site previously (Balling & Falk, 1980; J. H. Falk, 1983; Morse, 1977; Moscardo, 1999; Mullins, 1979), and ZIP code or home country (Stern et al., 2011). We used two separate analyses to determine whether visitors could be labeled “local,” one by driving time and one by geography. In the first, visitors were deemed “local” if their reported ZIP code was within a 3-hr drive time from the site visitor center. In the second, they were deemed “local” if their ZIP code was within a 100-mile radius of the site visitor center. The resource focus of the site (natural or cultural) and the location of the site (remote, urban, or urban-proximate) were also recorded.
Sampling
Teams of two researchers administered surveys at highly trafficked visitor areas at each site. Areas included visitor centers, boardwalks or overlooks, bus stops, and site museums. For visitor centers and museums, researchers were stationed outside the building and approached visitors as they were exiting the building. The target demographic was visitors aged 14 or older, as research suggests this to be a key transitional age associated with increasing autonomy and independence from parents in terms of opinion-formulation and decision-making (Smetana, 2011; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Potential youth participants were asked their age, and surveys were only given to those reporting to be 14 or older. In rare occasions where a child under 14 filled out the survey (i.e., when a parent handed the survey to their child), those surveys were disregarded and removed from the sample. Rather than setting a formalized sampling interval, researchers approached the next available individual or group after each interaction was completed. For groups, a maximum of two surveys were collected. In situations where more than two visitors in a group volunteered for the survey, and the group could not determine for themselves who would complete the survey, researchers selected participants with birthdays closest to either June 1 or December 1. The date alternated for each group approached. The administration approach was designed to last no longer than 3 to 4 min. A total of 1,990 surveys were collected across all nine sites.
Analysis
For analysis, answers were converted to a four-point scale (1 = definitely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = probably yes, 4 = definitely yes) as surveys presented to participants only included the category labels. The average interest level for the three traditional-styled experiences and the three ACE-styled experiences were calculated for each visitor, creating one overall average score for interest in traditional and one score for interest in ACE for each visitor (Cronbach’s alpha traditional = .785; Cronbach’s alpha ACE = .826). 1
We first compared the mean levels of interest for each program type using a paired-samples t-test. We then examined preferences using the same technique across park sites and for different groups of visitors, based on self-identified gender, visitation patterns, visit characteristics, self-identified race, and domicile using independent samples t-tests. We also provide the Cohen’s d effect size for each significant test (small > 0.2, medium > 0.5, and large > 0.8).
Result
Overall, 99% of respondents indicated that they would likely be interested (probably yes or definitely yes) in at least one program option, with 83% of respondents indicating that they would definitely be interested in at least one program option. Roughly 99% of respondents indicated they would likely be interested in at least one traditional program option with about 79% indicating they would definitely be interested. About 73% of respondents indicated that they would likely be interested in at least one ACE experience, with about 34% indicating they would definitely be interested.
Mean comparisons indicated that visitors were more interested in interpreter-driven experiences (mean = 3.59) than audience-driven experiences (mean = 2.60; t = 55.9; p = < .001; Cohen’s d = 1.27 – large effect size). This trend was consistent at each park unit and for all visitor types (based on gender, age, visitation, race/ethnicity, geographic origin, all with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d > 0.8; Tables 4 and 5). No visitor group at any park site exhibited a preference for audience-driven-style programming over interpreter-driven-style programming (p > .05). Across the entire sample, nearly 82% of respondents indicated they were more interested in attending interpreter-driven programs (higher mean score). Only 4% of respondents indicated greater interest in audience-driven-style programs. Roughly 14% of visitors’ responses indicated no difference in level of interest between interpreter-driven and audience-driven programs (mean scores were equal).
Overall Frequencies for Each Item Associated with Interpreter-Driven and Audience-Driven Interpretation.
Mean interest by park site.
Mean interest by visitor type.
Discussion
This study examined NPS visitors’ self-reported interest in attending programs that involve sharing their thoughts with fellow visitors and listening to the perspectives of others. Results suggest that visitors, irrespective of any measured characteristics of the visitor or the park site, are less interested in attending programs with these qualities than they are in more traditional, interpreter-driven programming. Only 4% of the total sample exhibited a preference for audience-driven-style programming. This aligns with past research that suggests that people attend interpretive programming to learn something about the site, to be entertained, to experience something they might otherwise miss, and to provide a good experience for their group (Stern et al., 2011).
Only 14% of respondents expressed that they would definitely be interested in attending a program in which they would share their own thoughts and ideas with others, and only 20% expressed that they would definitely be interested in listening to other visitors’ thoughts and ideas about a site. This aligns with research by Merson et al. (2022) that observed that visitors commonly resisted attempts at facilitating audience-sharing in interpretive programs.
The findings provide insights into the dominant preferences of visitors to NPS sites in the U.S. They do not speak to how visitors would actually respond to audience-driven programs, though prior research on expectations may provide some clues. Visitor expectations tend to have strong influences on visitor satisfaction (del Bosque & Martín, 2008; Loomis, 1993; Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Expectations serve as a reference point for judging performance, meaning that satisfaction often depends on how closely the actual experience aligns with preconceived ideas. If an experience falls short of or contradicts these expectations, it often results in a negative evaluation. Conversely, meeting to slightly exceeding expectations can enhance satisfaction, while dramatically exceeding them can create memorable, transformative experiences (Oliver, 1980; Pine & Gilmore, 1999).
Because the interpreter-driven model has been the dominant approach to programming for decades, visitors may have developed a mental model that equates interpretive programs to entertaining, interpreter-driven learning experiences. This expectation of a more passive learning experience may influence their willingness to engage in audience-driven programs. Visitors thus may not initially anticipate or desire an experience that requires participation or personal sharing. However, research on experience design suggests that expectation management and framing play a pivotal role in shaping openness to new formats (J. H. Falk & Dierking, 2016). J. H. Falk and Dierking (2016) posit that creating positive experiences requires aligning program design with visitors’ personal agendas while also gradually expanding their sense of what is possible in the setting. In practice, to be responsive, interpreters may first need to acknowledge and honor visitors’ existing stylistic preferences and expectations. If audience members appear to desire greater degrees of participation, the interpreter may need to carefully scaffold the experience as they introduce more participatory techniques (see Implications for Practice). By doing so, interpreters can both respect visitors’ expectations and create opportunities for novelty and deeper participatory engagement.
Future research focused on audience-driven programs may seek to explore the outcomes associated with these programs and how best to facilitate and invite personal sharing. With this information, researchers can identify the relative effectiveness of different specific approaches and provide insight for designing more impactful interpretive experiences for modern audiences.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study indicate that visitors to National Park Service sites, irrespective of park or demographics, desire interpreter-driven learning experiences. Our findings reveal that most visitors may not be expecting, or interested in, sharing their personal beliefs, thoughts, or opinions with each other during programs. Neither do they appear to be interested in listening to other visitors. Instead, visitors appear to be more interested in learning about the site and its resources from an interpreter. As such, interpreters providing dialogic and participatory programs may find visitors hesitant or resistant to participating, and it may take more of an effort to create a space where visitors feel comfortable and willing to share their personal lived experiences, opinions, and thoughts. These results align with the current evolution of ACE training (NPS, 2019) that emphasizes the importance of gradually fostering audience cohesion through scaffolding prompts. Scaffolding in this context refers to the deliberate structuring of questions and activities in a way that eases participants into deeper engagement (NPS, 2019). The training suggests that interpreters begin with low-risk, surface level questions, that allow visitors to participate without fear of judgment. Over time, the interpreter may introduce more thought-provoking and emotionally risky questions, creating a natural progression that invites participants to share their lived experiences and personal perspectives or values. This approach theoretically builds trust among participants, helping them feel safe to contribute. Current training (NPS, 2023) also emphasizes that if the audience resists invitations to participate, interpreters should pivot to more interpreter-driven techniques.
Our findings do not address how audiences, regardless of their incoming preferences, actually respond to ACE-style programming. Rather, they primarily speak to audience expectations and desires. Additional research is necessary to determine how these programs actually influence the visitor experience and desired outcomes of interpretation.
An additional auxiliary finding, which was not the central focus of the paper, also warrants mention here. While 99% indicated an interest in attending a live interpretive program, and 83% indicated that they would
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
From Corresponding Author
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Anja Whittington and Dr. Kelley Anderson for their guidance, and feedback throughout this study. I also extend my appreciation to the rangers of Arlington House, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, Gettysburg National Military Park, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Indiana Dunes National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and Muir Woods National Monument for graciously hosting us and providing essential support for this study. Additionally, this study would not have been possible without the financial support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Advancing Informal STEAM Education program (DRL 1906610) and the National Park Service (P22AM01078). Finally, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Paige Crane, Amber Hawes, Jessica Henry, Mary Grace Larson, and Cameron Miller for their invaluable encouragement and assistance before, during, and after the data collection process.
Ethical Considerations
All elements of the study were reviewed by the Virginia Tech IRB and deemed exempt.
Consent to Participate
Consent implied by completion of surveys.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Advancing Informal STEM Education program (DRL 1906610) and analysis was supported by the National Park Service (P22AM01078).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Authors Robert Powell and Marc Stern are members of the Editorial Board of Journal of Interpretation Research. The authors did not take part in the peer review or decision-making process for this submission and have no further conflicts to declare.
Data Availability Statement
De-identified data available upon request.