Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:51:24.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging the Pedagogical Basis of Contemporary Environmental Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Kevin Markwell
Kevin Markwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Leisure, and Tourism Studies, Central Coast Campus, University of Newcastle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Environmental interpretation can be defined as a kind of non-formal environmental education carried out in predominantly recreational settings within which visitors are provided with opportunities to become more aware of particular concepts and phenomena through first hand experiences. The fundamental objective of environmental interpretation programs is commonly given as increasing visitors' empathy for environmental conservation: the visit becomes a transformatory experience as a result of which it is intended that visitors become more committed to ensuring the continued integrity and sustainability of the environment. This paper argues that, as presently practised, environmental interpretation is informed largely by a somewhat conservative, traditional pedagogy, and as such tends to be didactic, knowledge-driven, and shaped more by technique than by philosophy. An attempt is made to outline, at least conceptually, an interpretive process influenced more by the principles of an alternative educational framework called andragogy, one which acknowledges the (earning characteristics of adults, accentuates the affective domain of learning, and which might ultimately lead to greater levels of visitor involvement in learning processes.

Type
Thematic Section—Interpretation and Environmental Education
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 12 , 1996 , pp. 9 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckmann, E. A. 1989, ‘Interpretation in Australian national parks and reserves: Status, evaluation and prospects’, in Uzzell, D. L. (ed.), Heritage Interpretation, vol. 1, The Natural and Built Environment, Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
Bruner, E. 1991, ‘Transformation of self in tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 18, pp. 238–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, D. R. & Wagar, J. A. 1984, ‘Visitor groups and interpretation in parks and other leisure settings’, in Machlis, G. E. & Field, D. R. (eds), On Sociology: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History, Oregon State University Press, Oregon.Google Scholar
Fine, G.A. 1992, ‘Wild life, authenticity and the human experience of “natural” places’, in Ellis, C. & Flaherty, M. G. (eds), Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experiences, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1976, The Birth of the Clinic, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Hammitt, W. E. 1984, ‘Cognitive processes involved in environmental interpretation’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iozzi, L. A. 1989, ‘What research says to the educator: Part 1, environmental education and the affective domain’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastenholz, H. G. & Erdmann, K. H. 1994, ‘Education for responsibility within the framework of UNESCO’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, M. S. 1980, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, Cambridge, The Adult Education Co., New York.Google Scholar
Orams, M. 1994, ‘Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction between tourists and wildlife’, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 10, pp. 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, P. L. 1994, ‘Tourism and interpretation: Beyond talented optimism’, in Markwell, K. & Muloin, S. (eds), Embracing Interpretation in the Year of Indigenous Peoples: Proceedings of the 1993 National Conference of the Interpretation Australia Association, University of Newcastle, NSW.Google Scholar
Peart, B. 1986, ‘Interpretation in informal learning’, Journal of interpretation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, J. W., Loomis, R. J. & Dagostino, J. 1990, ‘The learning benefits of leisure’, Journal of Leisure Research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, C. Z. & Hodgson, R. W. 1977, ‘The contribution of perception training to interpretive effectiveness: An experiment’, Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwass, R. 1986, ‘The university and the concept of environmental education’, in Universities and Environmental Education, UNESCO & the international Association of Universities, France.Google Scholar
Tilden, F. 1977, Interpreting Our Heritage, 2nd. edition, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Urry, J. 1990, The Tourist Gaze, Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Uzzell, D. L. 1989, ‘Introduction’ in Uzzell, D. L. (ed.), Heritage Interpretation, vol. 2, The Visitor Experience, Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
Walter, T. 1996, ‘From museum to morgue? Electronic guides in Roman Bath’, Journal of Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. 1992, The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar