Online Ranger Talks Nearly as Effective as Traditional Talks

Although national parks and other “free-choice” learning environments are increasingly turning to online resources to expand their reach, there has been limited research to date comparing the effectiveness of these electronic media to more traditional interpretive programs. So the authors of this paper, one of whom is an interpretive ranger at Canyonlands National Park, adapted Ham and Weiler's assessment toolkit to investigate the park's use of “Ranger Minutes” video podcasts.

In a typical installment of “Ranger Minutes,” a uniformed park ranger delivers a 3-to-5-minute talk on topics such as the park's cultural history, geology, flora, and fauna. The ranger's overview is complemented with images and audio from the park. At Canyonlands, eight podcasts are available online as part of the “Inside Canyonlands” series. The researchers aimed to find out whether the podcasts were as effective as traditional ranger talks delivered in person at the park, and whether there was any difference in viewers' responses to the podcasts if they viewed them online or at the park's visitor center.

The same interpreter delivered the in-person talks and the video podcasts, which had identical content. The video podcasts were made available online on the park's website and in the park's visitor center. After viewing the interpretive talk (live or podcast), viewers were offered a post-test survey that measured their emotional, intellectual, and stewardship responses. The survey also collected background information related to the visitors' sex, ethnicity, education, and motivations for viewing the interpretive program.

The results for all types of the talk were positive, but the traditional interpretive talk scored highest overall as an effective interpretive tool. But the authors conclude that the online podcasts were only “slightly less effective interpretive tools than traditional ranger talks.” Looking more closely at the data, the authors believe that “online podcasts are nearly as effective as traditional programs for forging some intellectual and emotional connections, while traditional ranger talks are best at fostering stewardship.” They note the surprising finding that online viewers reported the highest scores of any group for curiosity and feelings of relevance, and they note that the higher knowledge scores among in-person-talk viewers could also be attributable to the fact that the visitors enjoyed the benefit of other interpretive messages during their trip to the park. On the other hand, the podcasts viewed at stations within the visitor center returned the weakest results.

The authors conclude that video podcasts appear to be a wise investment for parks, especially “for parks with low visitation due to remoteness and/or lack of public awareness, for it generates similar intellectual, emotional, and stewardship connections to the resource despite the lack of actual visitation.” And they urge exhibit planners to question whether installing video viewing stations within visitor centers is a wise investment, or whether those resources might be better spent enhancing online resources.

The authors also acknowledge that further research would help clarify the picture. They note that the participants were not randomly assigned to viewing groups, and the research didn't include control groups or pre-tests, which weakens the results. They also note that people were free to decline the survey after their interpretive experience, and thus the respondents might not be a true representation of all the visitors who viewed the talks. In particular, they note that from informal conversations with visitors, the authors know that children and students viewed the online podcasts, but no survey results were returned by children.