March Brown Bag Session De-briefing
Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions – pt. 2
March 25, 2010
In part two of our two part discussion on Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions we picked up where we left off in February. Since everyone was comfortable with introductions and transitions we again focused on conclusions and used the session as an informal discussion. Art shared an excellent technique to test if the theme came across to the visitors by concluding with a question. The audience’s answer is the re-statement of the theme.
Asking a question to the audienceProgram: Art’s “Birdman of Alcatraz”Introduction: Asks two questions to audience. Why did Robert Stroud spend 54 years in prison? and Why was Robert Stroud known as the “Birdman of Alcatraz”?
Conclusion repeats questions to audience: Robert Stroud spent 54 years in prison. Why?
Robert Stroud was known as the “Birdman of Alcatraz”. Why?
Audience response restates the themes that Robert Stroud was his own worst enemy and that he got his famous nickname to market his biography.
Another excellent technique was shared by Sharlene. Using a quote to conclude a program can be an effective way to sum up the program using the subject’s own words.
Using a quotation
Program: Sharlene’s “Floyd Hamilton: Back from the Dead”
Theme: Good things turn bad and bad things turn good for Floyd Hamilton.
Content: Covers Floyd Hamilton’s life and how he turned his life around after failing to escape from Alcatraz.
Conclusion: “Luckily for me, Alcatraz became my birthplace and not my grave.”
John shared some insight from his Al Capone program highlighting the fact that a program is not static. Instead a program develops and evolves after months and years of delivering it. Consequently, the theme, introduction and conclusion can change as time goes by, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. We spent some time discussing the pros and cons of the current conclusion and brainstorming new ideas.
Program: John’s “Al Capone”
Theme: Why do you know about Al Capone?
Current Conclusion: While Capone was the most famous and might be the reason you’re here tonight, remember that there are 1500 plus other convicts who each have a story to tell.
We agreed the current conclusion was an effective way to advertise other programs, ask people to reflect upon the success stories they heard about on the audio tour, and think about why Capone was so different from the rest. We also brainstormed other possible conclusions that could do an even better job at advancing the theme (or advancing a new theme).
Ideas for new conclusions:
Restating the theme in the form of a question to the audience: So, why do we know about Capone?
When Capone died he was an obscure figure. Nobody cared about Capone then, in 1947, why do we care now, in 2010?
Quotable Capone: Capone’s relationship with newspaper reporters and his famous quotes (whether real or imagined) were one of the things that made him famous and remembered. Finishing with a Capone quote might be a good way to illustrate that.
Art and Sharlene also shared additional programs. Art’s Indian Occupation was another good example of advancing the theme that the occupation was a cultural success but a social failure. The accompanying concluding statement, “Alcatraz is today what it was in 1969, a symbol of Indian unity” advances the theme nicely. Sharlene’s “Murder / Suicide” program uses an innovative theme highlighting her own personal journey towards investigating the truth of this dramatic story. We look forward to seeing how this program’s conclusion will develop over the next few weeks to add to the variety of effective concluding techniques.
Thanks everyone for attending and sharing! Let’s keep sharing our successes and learning experiences to continue to develop great new conclusions and improve our programs.
Stay tuned for info re: April and May brown bag sessions coming soon!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
February Brown Bag Session
February Brown Bag Session De-briefing
Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions – pt. 1
On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Tara, Jim B. and I met for part one of our two part discussion on Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions. We agreed that often times the most difficult part of an interpretive program is the conclusion so much of our conversation focused on conclusions. We reviewed the standard conclusion as taught in the NPS Interpretation 101 training course, that is, restate the theme and thank the audience for coming. Aside from that the NPS IDP doesn’t really address conclusions in any more depth. The Basic Interpretation Handbook for California State Parks does elaborate a little more in their instruction on conclusions so we read and discussed that as well. In addition to repeating the theme, thanking the audience for attending and providing a clear ending the CA State Parks suggest techniques such as asking for questions from the audience, giving a philosophical ending, leaving the audience with a question to think about, providing opportunities for action or further learning, and advertising future programs. This list generated a lot of ideas and brainstorming when we discussed our individual programs.
A few examples of great conclusion techniques are listed below.
Asking a question to the audience:
Program: Tara’s “John Paul Scott Escape”
Subtheme: Luck is an important thing to have on your side in an escape.
Question to audience: Do you think John Paul Scott was lucky?
Program: Wendy’s “Sharks, Shipwrecks and Skeletons”
Subject matter: The dangers of the bay and the 1962 escape
Question to audience: Do you think they made it?
Physical involvement: Based on what they’ve heard about the dangers of the bay she had visitors ‘vote’ by standing to one side or the other
Final question to audience: Why?
Leaving the visitors with a question to think about:
Program: Jim’s UTH / USPAZ
Theme: There were different ways an inmate could do his time.
Subject matter: talks about inmates who remained incorrigible, who escaped, died or turned their lives around.
Conclusion: Think about what kind of time would you do?
Opportunity for action / self-fulfillment:
Program: Sharlene’s “Moon Over Alcatraz”
Conclusion: When you go home find a place to watch a moon rise sometime and email me about it at moonoveralcatraz@gmail.com.
Props:
Program: Tim Brazil’s “Battle of ‘46”
Theme: The key to the escape as literally a key.
Conclusion: Tim uses the key again as a visual prop in answering his own question. He asks what really foiled the plot? (pause) Then he holds up to the audience in answer to his question.
--
The rest of our meeting time was spent going through new programs and programs in which we wanted to improve our conclusions. The result was another great example of a conclusion from Jim B listed below and an improved conclusion for my 1939 Escape program. Unfortunately, Tara did not have time to work on her program as she had to leave to do the boat narration.
Program: Jim B’s “Future of Alcatraz”
Opening statement / question: What would you do if you were given the keys to Alcatraz?
Concluding statement / question: What do the keys of Alcatraz really open?
Prop: Holds up keys during both questions. The answer to the concluding question is the theme. It opens to a mirror that reflects the society of which Alcatraz is a part. It opens a key to our imagination, our values, our hopes and anxieties.
Program: Eric’s “1939 Escape”
Theme: The simple actions of five escapees would have repercussions on Alcatraz felt until the present day.
Introduction: Because of this escape one man lost his life, one was murdered for his role, the murder led to a trial which made sensational headlines and influenced public opinion. Later, the trial would inspire a Hollywood movie that would perpetuate myths about the island.
Original Conclusion: A rambling list of the above info that resulting in people walking away during the last minute of the program.
New Conclusion: This escape affected inmates, it affected the way the Bureau of Prisons ran Alcatraz and it affected the way we think of Alcatraz today.
Conclusions about conclusions:
We concluded that the most important thing in a conclusion is not to simply re-state the theme. That technique can have the effect of losing visitors’ attention because you are signaling to them that you are now simply going to repeat what they’ve already heard. Instead, we “discovered” it can be much more effective to advance your theme rather than simply re-state it. We propose writing out the last sentence you will say to visitors before thank you. This concluding statement can and perhaps should be written into your formal outline and should reflect how you’ve advanced your idea from introduction to conclusion. For examples, look again at the programs mentioned above, especially Jim B’s opening and concluding statement.
Next month I was thinking we could start with the examples above and ask these two questions.
What makes them good conclusions?
What would the concluding statement be for each?
Time permitting, we could then move on to a discussion / workshop about Introductions and Transitions.
Stay tuned for info re: a date for the March brown bag. Let me know which Thursdays will definitely not work. Thanks!
Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions – pt. 1
On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Tara, Jim B. and I met for part one of our two part discussion on Introductions, Transitions and Conclusions. We agreed that often times the most difficult part of an interpretive program is the conclusion so much of our conversation focused on conclusions. We reviewed the standard conclusion as taught in the NPS Interpretation 101 training course, that is, restate the theme and thank the audience for coming. Aside from that the NPS IDP doesn’t really address conclusions in any more depth. The Basic Interpretation Handbook for California State Parks does elaborate a little more in their instruction on conclusions so we read and discussed that as well. In addition to repeating the theme, thanking the audience for attending and providing a clear ending the CA State Parks suggest techniques such as asking for questions from the audience, giving a philosophical ending, leaving the audience with a question to think about, providing opportunities for action or further learning, and advertising future programs. This list generated a lot of ideas and brainstorming when we discussed our individual programs.
A few examples of great conclusion techniques are listed below.
Asking a question to the audience:
Program: Tara’s “John Paul Scott Escape”
Subtheme: Luck is an important thing to have on your side in an escape.
Question to audience: Do you think John Paul Scott was lucky?
Program: Wendy’s “Sharks, Shipwrecks and Skeletons”
Subject matter: The dangers of the bay and the 1962 escape
Question to audience: Do you think they made it?
Physical involvement: Based on what they’ve heard about the dangers of the bay she had visitors ‘vote’ by standing to one side or the other
Final question to audience: Why?
Leaving the visitors with a question to think about:
Program: Jim’s UTH / USPAZ
Theme: There were different ways an inmate could do his time.
Subject matter: talks about inmates who remained incorrigible, who escaped, died or turned their lives around.
Conclusion: Think about what kind of time would you do?
Opportunity for action / self-fulfillment:
Program: Sharlene’s “Moon Over Alcatraz”
Conclusion: When you go home find a place to watch a moon rise sometime and email me about it at moonoveralcatraz@gmail.com.
Props:
Program: Tim Brazil’s “Battle of ‘46”
Theme: The key to the escape as literally a key.
Conclusion: Tim uses the key again as a visual prop in answering his own question. He asks what really foiled the plot? (pause) Then he holds up to the audience in answer to his question.
--
The rest of our meeting time was spent going through new programs and programs in which we wanted to improve our conclusions. The result was another great example of a conclusion from Jim B listed below and an improved conclusion for my 1939 Escape program. Unfortunately, Tara did not have time to work on her program as she had to leave to do the boat narration.
Program: Jim B’s “Future of Alcatraz”
Opening statement / question: What would you do if you were given the keys to Alcatraz?
Concluding statement / question: What do the keys of Alcatraz really open?
Prop: Holds up keys during both questions. The answer to the concluding question is the theme. It opens to a mirror that reflects the society of which Alcatraz is a part. It opens a key to our imagination, our values, our hopes and anxieties.
Program: Eric’s “1939 Escape”
Theme: The simple actions of five escapees would have repercussions on Alcatraz felt until the present day.
Introduction: Because of this escape one man lost his life, one was murdered for his role, the murder led to a trial which made sensational headlines and influenced public opinion. Later, the trial would inspire a Hollywood movie that would perpetuate myths about the island.
Original Conclusion: A rambling list of the above info that resulting in people walking away during the last minute of the program.
New Conclusion: This escape affected inmates, it affected the way the Bureau of Prisons ran Alcatraz and it affected the way we think of Alcatraz today.
Conclusions about conclusions:
We concluded that the most important thing in a conclusion is not to simply re-state the theme. That technique can have the effect of losing visitors’ attention because you are signaling to them that you are now simply going to repeat what they’ve already heard. Instead, we “discovered” it can be much more effective to advance your theme rather than simply re-state it. We propose writing out the last sentence you will say to visitors before thank you. This concluding statement can and perhaps should be written into your formal outline and should reflect how you’ve advanced your idea from introduction to conclusion. For examples, look again at the programs mentioned above, especially Jim B’s opening and concluding statement.
Next month I was thinking we could start with the examples above and ask these two questions.
What makes them good conclusions?
What would the concluding statement be for each?
Time permitting, we could then move on to a discussion / workshop about Introductions and Transitions.
Stay tuned for info re: a date for the March brown bag. Let me know which Thursdays will definitely not work. Thanks!
Friday, February 26, 2010
January Brown Bag Session
Thank you everyone for attending our first ever brown bag session last Thursday. I felt it was a great success because everyone brought great ideas and insight to the table. Our discussion of themes was grounded in a short blog entry by Dr. Doug Knapp, Indiana University, summarizing his research regarding long term retention of interpretive themes. Our discussion raised questions such as: what are the ways we can use the tool of interpretive themes? What are our goals for our interpretive programs? Is it important for themes to be retained in the long term?
It seemed the general consensus was that it is important to develop thematic programs. However, the way we understand this process is somewhat different from the "conventional wisdom" or the exact way you were taught in interp training. The theme, first and foremost, needs to be something that naturally emerges out of your interest in the story. It has to be something you belive in. It is equally important as an organizational tool for yourself to help you develop your program and craft your story. We (including Dr. Knapp) agreed that it is not the theme itself that is most important per se, but the way in which the theme is conveyed. Knapp writes, "The techniques / experiences that brought the theme to life were more important than an offering of key words and/or phrases."
We also discussed how the quality of delivery and appropriate technique lead to the best outcomes for the visitors. This too I think was in agreement with Knapp's findings, "research shows that if a theme is to carry with the visitor beyond the boundaries of the resource site, the techniques to convey this information should be viewed as important as the message." In large part that is because the technique is "easier" for visitors to remember. They remember what they did or what they saw but not necessarily the content of the talk. Knapp looks at an interpretive experience from more of a social psychology standpoint. His research is based on the idea that an interpretive experience is episodic. That is, it is better to evaluate visitors' experience by looking at episodic memory (what people remember of that 'episode') instead of semantic memory (factual memory of info presented). In some of his other work he discusses what factors aide in long term memory retention and how to incorporate those factors into our interpretive programs.
There was disagreement with Knapp's assumption that long term retention of the theme is the most important outcome for an interpretive program. This assumption is also made in some IDP training materials. Based on our own experience, many interpreters agreed that the goal supersedes the theme in importance. If a visitor can have a positive experience and take away one simple, clear idea from our programs then their experience will be memorable. In making memories visitors will create their own meanings based on their own life experiences and not out of our efforts to force the meaning of anything on them.
I think as we go forward developing our new programs this month these are great concepts to think about and keep in mind. I know we've had a lot of research time taken up by meetings and trainings recently so thanks again for coming last week. I would like to stay to the once a month schedule of brown bag sessions though as I think discussion at one session can naturally lead into related topics for the following month. I believe that was the case this time as we talked briefly about structuring programs in the way of introductions, transitions and conclusions. I was thinking that for anyone interested we could meet February 25th at 2:30 p.m. on the island to discuss introductions, transitions, and conclusions. If you have a work-in-progress maybe it would be helpful to have a workshop style meeting to gain input from peers. Let me know what you think and if it doesn't fit our schedules or interests we'll just skip February and pick up with the brown bags in March.
Thanks again! Let me know if there is anything I missed that you think is important to recap for our ongoing work.
Eric
It seemed the general consensus was that it is important to develop thematic programs. However, the way we understand this process is somewhat different from the "conventional wisdom" or the exact way you were taught in interp training. The theme, first and foremost, needs to be something that naturally emerges out of your interest in the story. It has to be something you belive in. It is equally important as an organizational tool for yourself to help you develop your program and craft your story. We (including Dr. Knapp) agreed that it is not the theme itself that is most important per se, but the way in which the theme is conveyed. Knapp writes, "The techniques / experiences that brought the theme to life were more important than an offering of key words and/or phrases."
We also discussed how the quality of delivery and appropriate technique lead to the best outcomes for the visitors. This too I think was in agreement with Knapp's findings, "research shows that if a theme is to carry with the visitor beyond the boundaries of the resource site, the techniques to convey this information should be viewed as important as the message." In large part that is because the technique is "easier" for visitors to remember. They remember what they did or what they saw but not necessarily the content of the talk. Knapp looks at an interpretive experience from more of a social psychology standpoint. His research is based on the idea that an interpretive experience is episodic. That is, it is better to evaluate visitors' experience by looking at episodic memory (what people remember of that 'episode') instead of semantic memory (factual memory of info presented). In some of his other work he discusses what factors aide in long term memory retention and how to incorporate those factors into our interpretive programs.
There was disagreement with Knapp's assumption that long term retention of the theme is the most important outcome for an interpretive program. This assumption is also made in some IDP training materials. Based on our own experience, many interpreters agreed that the goal supersedes the theme in importance. If a visitor can have a positive experience and take away one simple, clear idea from our programs then their experience will be memorable. In making memories visitors will create their own meanings based on their own life experiences and not out of our efforts to force the meaning of anything on them.
I think as we go forward developing our new programs this month these are great concepts to think about and keep in mind. I know we've had a lot of research time taken up by meetings and trainings recently so thanks again for coming last week. I would like to stay to the once a month schedule of brown bag sessions though as I think discussion at one session can naturally lead into related topics for the following month. I believe that was the case this time as we talked briefly about structuring programs in the way of introductions, transitions and conclusions. I was thinking that for anyone interested we could meet February 25th at 2:30 p.m. on the island to discuss introductions, transitions, and conclusions. If you have a work-in-progress maybe it would be helpful to have a workshop style meeting to gain input from peers. Let me know what you think and if it doesn't fit our schedules or interests we'll just skip February and pick up with the brown bags in March.
Thanks again! Let me know if there is anything I missed that you think is important to recap for our ongoing work.
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)