At Carlsbad Caverns National Park, park rangers blended traditional personal interpretation with technology to showcase park-based research and to advance science literacy among visitors. Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP) provided interpreters with professional development and a selection of visualizations from scientists’ research on Brazilian free-tailed bats and their habitat at Carlsbad Caverns. After using tablets containing these visualizations for informal interpretive interactions, the interpreters responded to an open-ended survey. The authors examined interpreters’ responses, finding that interpreters regarded tablets as helpful in accomplishing several interpretive goals, especially in particular locations. Interpreters were strategic in initiating and sustaining interactions. Visitors’ reactions were positive; nevertheless, there were challenges indicating that this new form of interpretation is worthy of further research.
BenneM., PattisonS., RubinA., & DierkingL. (2016, March). Researching the Value of Educator Actions on Learning (REVEAL): Studying staff-facilitated museum exhibits. Poster session presented at the Advancing Informal STEM Learning PI Meeting, Bethesda, MD.
CharC. (2015). To be more inquisitive in the natural world: Evaluation of the Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP).Retrieved from iSWOOP webpage: http://iswoopcave.com/?page_id=32
4.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.London: Sage Publications.
5.
DillonC. (2011). Making a Difference. In LarsenD. (Ed.), Meaningful Interpretation: How to Connect Hearts and Minds to Places, Objects, and Other Resources, 2nd ed. (pp. 154–155). Fort Washington, PA: Eastern National.
6.
FalkJ.H., & DierkingL.D. (2010). The 95 Percent Solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science.American Scientist, 98 (6), 486–493.
7.
FiresteinS. (2012). Ignorance: How It Drives Science.New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
ForistB., & KnappD. (2014). A New Interpretive Pedagogy.Journal of Interpretation Research, 19 (1), 33–38.
9.
ForistB., & KnappD. (2013, November 8). Leaving Muir and Tilden Behind: Visitor-Centered Interpretation Through Dialogue. Presentation at National Association for Interpretation National Workshop, Reno, NV. Retrieved from http://www.storylinedesigns.co.uk/blog/files/tilden-forist-knapp-ppt.pdf
GoodwinH. (2013). American Sign Language and Audio Description on the Mobile Guide at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.Curator, The Museum Journal.56 (3), 369–370.
12.
HamS. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets.Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
MonyP., & HeimlichJ. (2008). Talking to Visitors about Conservation: Exploring Message Communication through Docent-Visitor Interactions at Zoos.Visitor Studies, 11 (2), 151–162.
20.
National Park Service. (2012). A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement.Retrieved from National Park Service website: http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/
National Park System Advisory Board Education Committee, the National Education Council, and George Washington University. (2014). Vision Paper: 21st Century National Park Service Interpretive Skills.Retrieved from National Park Service website: http://www.nps.gov/resources/upload/REPORT-Interpretative-Skills-05-22-14.pdf
23.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments.Philip Bell, Bruce Lewenstein, Andrew W. Shouse, and Michael A. Feder, Editors. Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24.
PattisonS.A., & DierkingL.D. (2013). Staff-Mediated Learning in Museums: A Social Interaction Perspective.Visitor Studies16 (2): 117–143.
25.
PerdueB.M., StolinskiT.S., & MapleT.L. (2012). Using Technology to Educate Zoo Visitors About Conservation.Visitor Studies15 (1): 16–27.
26.
PovisK.T., & CrowleyK. (2015). Family Learning in Object-Based Museums: The Role of Joint Attention.Visitor Studies, 18 (2), 168–182. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2015.1079095
27.
RudyJ. (2014, October). Why: Facilitated Dialogue in the National Park Service. Presentation at Interpreting Critical Issues Using Civic Engagement and Facilitated Dialogue Techniques conference, Valley Forge National Historic ParkValley Forge, PA.
