An important goal for environmental interpretation is to attempt to change a constituent's knowledge, attitude, and/or behavior toward the park site and beyond. This study evaluated the impact of two different interpretive experiences on elementary students’ environmental knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Each program represented a major variable associated with the attitude/behavior change goals supported by interpreters. These programs were administered and evaluated during the 1995–96 school year at the Paul H. Douglas Environmental Education Center at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. The first interpretive experience, offered during the fall, was dedicated to ecological information, whereas the second program was conducted in the spring and was based on environmental issues associated with the site. Results of this quantitative analysis show significant gains in knowledge and little impact on attitude/behavior. The authors recommend multiple research methods to better evaluate effect and behavior changes following an interpretive experience.
AbsherJ. D. (1997). Introduction: Interpretation as communication.Trends, 34 (4), 2–6.
2.
BeckL., & CableT. (1998). Interpretation/or the 21st century.Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
3.
BixlerR. D. (1991). Successes and failures: A review of research on outdoor field trips.1991 Interpretive sourcebook: Proceedings of the National Interpreters Workshop, pp. 27–34.
4.
BluhmW. J., HungerfordH. R., McBethW. C., & VolkT. L. (1995). A final report on the development and pilot assessment of the middle school environmental literacy instrument. Unpublished research report, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale.
5.
BognerF. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective.Journal of Environmental Education, 29 (4), 17–29.
6.
BordenR., & PowellP. (1983). Androgyny and environmental orientation: Individual differences in concern and commitment. In SacksA. (Eds.), Current issues in environmental education and environmental studies. Volume VIII (pp. 261–275). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
7.
BrownW. E. (1971). Islands of hope.Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
8.
CableT.T., KnudsonD. M., & TheobaldW. F. (1986). The application of the theory of reasoned action to the evaluation of interpretation.Journal of Interpretation, 11 (1), 11–25.
9.
DahlenD., LarsenD., WeberS., & FudgeR. (1996, October). The process of interpretation: Synthesis and application of the interpretive process. Presentation conducted at the 1996 National Interpreters Workshop, Billings, MT.
10.
DrakeT., & KnappD. H. (1994). The hilltop interpretation project.1994 Interpretive sourcebook: Proceedings of the National Interpreters Workshop, pp. 282–292.
11.
FazioJ. R., & GilbertD. L. (1986). Public relations and communications for natural resource managers.Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
12.
GramannJ. H., & Vander StoepG.A. (1987). Prosocial behavior theory and natural resource protection: A conceptual synthesis.Journal of Environmental Management, 24, 247–257.
13.
GriswoldM. D. (1993). Evaluation tools for personal services interpretation.Legacy, 4 (1), 12–16.
14.
HamS. (1986). Social program evaluation and interpretation: A literature review. In MachlisG. (Ed.), Interpretive views (pp. 9–38). Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
15.
HamS. H., & KrumpeE. E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental education—A theoretical framework for interpreters.Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1), 11–23.
16.
HammittW. E. (1984). Cognitive processes involved in environmental interpretation.Journal of Environmental Education, 15 (4), 11–15.
17.
HinesJ. M., HungerfordH., & TomeraA. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1–8.
18.
HoltJ. G. (1988). A study of the effects of issue investigation and action training on characteristics associated with environmental behavior in non-gifted eighth grade students. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale.
19.
HungerfordH. R., & VolkT. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education.Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8–21.
20.
Independent Commission on Environmental Education. (1997, April). Are we building environmental literacy?Washington, DC: Author.
21.
IsaacS., & MichaelW. B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation.San Diego, CA: Edits.
22.
KirkindallS. (1996). Effecting positive change in human values through forest management interpretation.Legacy, 7 (5), 32–42.
23.
KnappD. H. (1994). Validating a framework of goals for program development in environmental interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale.
24.
KnudsonD. M., CableT.T., & BeckL. (1995). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources.State College, PA: Venture.
25.
KoranJ. J., KoranM. L., & EllisJ. (1989). Evaluating the effectiveness of field experiences: 1939–1989.Visitor Behavior, 4 (2), 7–10.
26.
LisowskiM., & DisingerJ. F. (1988). Environmental education research news.The Environmentalist, 8 (1), 3–6.
27.
MachlisG. E., & FieldD. R. (1992). On interpretation.Corvallis: Oregon State University.
28.
MackintoshB. (1986). Interpretation in the National Park Service.Washington, DC: National Park Service.
29.
MarcinkowskiT. J. (1989). An analysis of correlates and predictors of responsible environmental behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1988).Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (12), 3677A.
MorganJ. M., & JarrettT. R. (1994). Measuring audience response to interpretive modeling during a live animal program.1994 Interpretive Sourcebook: Proceedings of the National Interpreters Workshop, 311–314.
32.
MullinsG.W. (1985). Interpretive challenges in the twenty-first century.The Outdoor Communicator, 16 (1), 32–36.
33.
NashR. (1991). The rights of nature and the frontiers of interpretation.1991 Interpretive Sourcebook: Proceedings of the National Interpreters Workshop, Preface.
34.
National Park Service. (1991). National park education task force: A report and recommendations.Washington, DC: National Park Service.
35.
National Park Service. (1992). National parks for the 21st century: The Vail agenda.Washington, DC: National Park Service.
36.
NielsenC., & BuchananT. (1986). A comparison of the effectiveness of two interpretive programs regarding fire ecology and fire management.Journal of Interpretation, 11 (1), 1–10.
37.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1996). Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence.Troy, OH: Author.
RoggenbuckJ. W., HammittW. E., & BerrierD. L. (1982). The role of interpretation in managing for recreational carrying capacity.Journal of Interpretation, 7 (1), 7–20.
40.
ShivelyC. A. (1995). Get provoked: Applying Tilden's principles.Legacy, 6 (4), 6–10.
41.
SiaA. P., HungerfordH. R., & TomeraA. N. (1985/86). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis.Journal of Environmental Education, 17 (2), 31–40.
42.
SimmonsB. (1991). Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature and environmental center goals.Journal of Environmental Education, 22 (3), 16–21.
43.
StappW. D., BennettW., BryanJ., & NowakP. (1969). The concept of environmental education.Journal of Environmental Education, 1 (1), 30–31.
