A Comparison of Traditional and Facilitated Dialogue Programs in Grand Teton National Park: An Evaluation for the Future of Interpretive Programs. Issue 2 (November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Williams, Pat Stephens; Darville, Ray; McBroom, Matthew
• Is Part Of: Journal of interpretation research. Volume 23:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 67
• Page End: 81
• Publication Date: 2018-11
• Subjects: natural resource interpretation -- facilitated dialogue -- interpretive programs -- Grand Teton National Park
• DOI: 10.1177/109258721802300205
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1092-5872

Abstract

As part of finding their path for the next hundred years, the National Park Service is exploring diverse ways to engage the public and help create systemic changes in the way that the public interacts with each other. Facilitated dialogue in interpretive programs has been one of those ways. Traditionally, the public has embraced programming based on the expert and delivery, whereas the new direction leans toward an audience-centered, facilitated experience. To determine how this shift is affecting the experience related to interpretation in the parks, Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) conducted a study in 2015 and 2016. This multi-method study (this article presenting one slice) is based on the research model by Stern, et al (2012), which examined program and visitor characteristics among 56 live interpretive programs in Grand Teton National Park. Our goals were to compare traditional program with facilitated dialogue programs and to compare program characteristics over these two years. Findings indicate that traditional programs were significantly more attended than facilitated dialogue programs. However, when examining program characteristics, facilitated dialogue programs received significantly higher program evaluation scores than traditional programs. Adherence to the four-step Arc of Dialogue model was strongly and positively correlated with program characteristics.