Is ACE high or low?

Recently the National Park Service has been shifting its advanced Interpretive Programming to something that is called ACE, or "Audience Centered Experiences", in an effort to more closely engage visitors. As this is a fairly recent shift, some of the information may change or be different, so I will try to correct the information as I find it. The dynamic behind ACE is increasing visitation, to provide visitors with relevance, and to engage them through their own experiences. This level of interpretation can take place anywhere regardless of what kind of site it may be.

One of the reasons for this shift in emphasis is something that has been plaguing sites, parks, and other public education locations for the last few years: decreasing visitation. These places are getting less interested visitors and not enough minority demographics. The sense is that there are no means for exploring collective input from these communities and the sites "tell the same old story". This, combined with the rapid advancement of technology, makes maintaining and increasing visitation more difficult for public places. The effort is now being made to foster a facilitation style interpretation program that allows the visitors to input their thoughts and ideas into interpretive programming, thus creating more engagement and a better visitation experience. As defined as a such, the National Parks need to live up to their full potential, their argument goes. Visitors to a place using ACE would not only learn and enjoy themselves, but also gain new skills in critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, global awareness, and an understanding and literacy in scientific, civic, health, environmental, historical, and financial topics. Essentially the Park System would support and foster an "informed and active citizenry, prepared to meet the challenges of a globalized and changing society."

Less me talking and them listening is ok to me!

The shift is basically characterized as a movement away from the interpreter as presenter to being a collaborative facilitator for the visitors on programming. The shift for the visitors is from a subjective, passive learning and enjoying experience to a collective learning from each other sharing experience that helps them connect to each other, the resource, and their roles in society.



The stated purpose for ACE is to enrich people's lives through meaningful learning experiences and enjoyable recreation; protect and preserve natural and cultural resources through broad collaboration and shared stewardship; and inspire social and environmental consciousness to build community and to sustain the health of the planet.

Tilden Freeman

 ACE claims the heritage of Tilden Freeman's concepts of interpretation. "Not with the names of things, but by exposing the soul of things - those truths that lie behind what you are showing your visitor." Essentially the proponents of this system of interpretation want interpreters to go beyond learning and enjoyment to where Freeman really wanted interpretation to go. Through facilitated dialogue, collaborative effort with equal input, shared experience, and carefully crafted questioning, the visitors will walk away better people just for visiting.

Another interesting feature of ACE is rephrasing the interpretive structure. Rather than a Theme statement, ACE re-conceptualizes the Theme as an Essential Question. This Question is open-ended (meaning there are not "yes", "no", short answers, or even "right" answers) that helps create opportunities for "contribution of content and co-creation of meanings." So instead of using a Theme Statement like "Gettysburg was the turning point of the war in favor of the North away from the South", an interpreter could ask, "What makes conflicts change?"

Ask easy questions that everyone can answer first

One of the main features of ACE is the use of dialogic questions, the use of asking questions to create conversation. The technique for asking these kinds of questions is to remember an acronym ORACLE, or Only Right Answer Comes from Lived Experience. So rather than asking objective truth type of questions like, "What kind of kind of medical tool is this?", the kind with a right or wrong answer, the question might be, "What has your experience been with doctors?" It is very likely that everyone has been to the doctor and has had some sort of experience with the medical field and therefore everyone can comment on what their own experience is like. ORACLE is not to be used as a measurement of objective truth questions, such as accepting "incorrect" answers. The line of questioning is different. Dialogic Questions are also inviting, meaning that the questions and possible answers will not mark the visitor in a negative light such as giving a strong personal answer on a controversial topic. Dialogic Questions are also to be non-judgmental, without embedded cultural, political, or ideological assumptions. They are also supposed to be inclusive of everyone and conversational in nature so that it is more than a Q&A session, but rather a conversation. The line of questioning is supposed to be designed to scaffold or lead from self-centered answers to more community problem solving, from "me" to "we". This is done by creating social capital by asking easy and inviting questions first and as more people get involved and freely share ideas, asking harder questions that can only be answered after the visitors are comfortable with the safe space being created through discussion.

There are a number of things that I feel are great about ACE. ACE is an attempt to try to get the visitor to come away with a more meaningful experience because they invest themselves in the learning process. Listening to what the visitors are concerned with allows for more interesting and relevant programming. It is a well known fact that getting visitors involved in their learning makes for more impacting learning and experiences. Because the visitor becomes part of the program, this means that they are involved, rather than passively listening. The art of asking open-ended question comes naturally for me, mostly because I come from a background of teamwork facilitation and so really it is like applying the principles there in an interpretive setting, but not everyone has this background. It is really taking a next step approach to learning.

There are some aspects of ACE that are more of a harder sell, especially for the public. Most of the visitors coming may not be interested in sharing their thoughts and concerns in a public forum. Sometimes they just want to know more about the place and hear the story. In many cases, they want to see the important stuff, like see "guns go boom". For the interpreters, it puts them in a tough spot. For example, trying to link a historical perspective (how it was) with the visitors' concerns and interests sounds like a daunting task. The interpreters may ask themselves, "How do we know what it was really like and how can we connect what we know (or think we know) to what the audience of 5-50 people are interested in without having to ask them all individually?" One Ranger commented, "Why does this seem so needlessly complicated?" My comment, as part of my training as an interpreter to make complex concepts into easy to understand observations responded, "To me, the heart of the matter is to be relevant to your audience and get them involved in something." Another hard sell is to new interpreters who do not yet have a firm foundation of interpretation, how have yet to form their own program yet. So one drawback is that this is a next level advanced concern, rather than a whole systemic replacement. You have to know how to walk before you can race a 100 yard dash with hurdles, so to speak.

So the question is, "Are ACEs high or low, in your opinion?"  ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥