Let me start out by admitting I don’t
know the first thing about Tilden or his (her) principles. That said, I
consider myself an experiential educator and have done a fair bit of study in
that realm.
Think this is somewhat germane to this
discussion. My point simply is that experience on its own is just that—experience.
Giving folks an experience in and of itself does not constitute experiential
education/learning/teaching. It takes an experience combined with active
processing of (thinking about) that experience to draw knowledge from it.
Learners can do that thinking on their own, but often times, it is the educator’s
role to not only provide an appropriate experience, but to also
facilitate/guide the processing (or get it going, anyway). The power of an
experience is that it gives the learner a direct, personal connection to the (potential)
learning, which information by itself often lacks. Getting out “hard
facts” may be important/necessary, but without a
reason to do so, most folks will quickly forget those hard facts; so what’s
the point? Connecting that information with a personal experience (especially
one that is a part of someone’s daily life) can help make the information
“real” to people, making them more likely to retain the
information.
One of the saddest mistakes I see would-be
experiential educators make is assuming that providing an experience in and of
itself is educational. To be sure, some folks will learn from the experience
because they will do the processing on their own, but others will not. By
providing the experience and a chance to think about it, educators have a
greater chance of succeeding (as ultimately, it is up to the individual person
whether they make the cognitive investment to actually learn anything).
One final point would be that experience doesn’t
have to be physical, as I think Ron hints at below. Having your imagination
tweaked by watching a butterfly emerge from its chrysalis or feeling your
spirits lift as you listen to a stirring song are also experiences. Experiences
are often mental and/or emotional (or some combination thereof, along with
physical). Instead of attempting to provide “hands on” learning, I
try to facilitate “hands, hearts & thoughts on” learning. As a
former adventure/outdoor educator, while the physical challenges I presented
learners were the most obvious, it was often the mental and emotional
challenges I provided that lead to the greatest learning for participants.
For what it’s worth,
tim
From: Museum
discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron Carnegie
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005
7:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L]
Interpretation or Not?
I have to say, I can't see how Tilden's
principles cause experience,to overshadow learning.
Tilden says just the
opposite, and says it quite clearly. Most importantly would be number
5. "Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part,
and must address itself to the whole man rather than any one phase".
This is most certainly interpreting "facts". You can not
interpret the whole just through hands on activity. What you are describing
is what I would call "Hands on for Hands on sake". The bane of
the modern museum world!
The only principle that I can find, that
is close to suggesting the importance of experiential learning in number
two and even it reminds you of the importance of facts. "Information,
as such is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon
information. But they are entirely different things. HOWEVER ALL
INTERPRETATION INCLUDES INFORMATION." Emphasis my own.
I also work at a historical
site. I also work entirely in first person. I would definitely
refer to my interpretation as meeting Tilden's principles and I rarely use
experiential or tactile teaching at all.
As to the original
poster's question. I wasn't going to respond, as I have no empirical
data, just apocryphal from my own experiences. I would argue however that
I wouldn't refer to a script is being the opposite of a Tilden
"delivery". In fact if I was creating a "script" I
would still follow Tilden principles. Scripts have their advantages,
though I would argue that I feel they have more disadvantages then
pluses. I don't even like to present at conferences from paper. Nor do I
think Tilden is a god. He wasn't. Frankly the principles are pretty
much just common sense, and would apply to many other non-interpretive
venues. I was following Tilden principles far before I learned them.
If I might ask the original
poster, what did you think of the scripted presentation? Did it engage
you? Did you learn (or I suppose in Tilden speak) did it provoke
you? Did you pay any attention to the other visitors around you?
Did they seem engaged?
Ron Carnegie
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Annmarie Zan
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 2:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interpretation or Not?I work for a museum that think's Tildens principles are God and they do have a lot going for them. If you follow the principles you will engage your auduence and hopefully teach them something. Where I personally run into problems with them is when the opportunity to "experience" overshadows the ability to learn. I work for a historical museum and we do first person interpretation but there are still hard facts that are neccessary to get out. I feel we short change our audience by just let them see, smell, touch, etc the buck skin but not share the wonderful thought of how this buckskin became soft by brain tanning and the inginuity of the Natives that created this tool just because it would be telling people facts and not interpreting. Just my 2 cents
love, annmarie
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Carl Visscher <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:44:07 -0400
Subject: Interpretation or Not?Is anyone aware of any studies that assess the effectiveness of interpretation and using (specifically Tilden's) interpretive principles versus other delivery methods (i.e. reading from script) in education presentations?
background: I was recently at a zoo where I watched an animal training demo...there was a live interpreter, but she was reading directly from a script. Straight factual information. This made me wonder about the way we interpret exhibits and animal interactions. Maybe reading from a script IS just as good as putting a lot of effort into making a presentation more engaging and interactive?....
any thoughts?....any empirical data?...
Thanks,
Nick Visscher
virtual outreach specialist
Virtual Outreach Program
MSU Museum (room 205)
West Circle Drive
East Lansing, MI 48824
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 517-353-3882
cell: 517-980-6244
fax: 517-432-2846
http://www.virtualoutreach.org
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).========================================================= Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).