Environmental Education and Interpretation at Their Best

Written by: Michael Mandli

After being exposed to the elements of whether or not Environmental Education and Interpretation are one in the same, I find myself exhausted by the discussion. Remarkably, my wits will not allow me to retire from this contest without developing my own compelling opinion on the subject.

I have attended countless interpretive programs and more than enough educational programs, that just happened to pertain to the environment. While all of them may have been, in some ways, similar, I must pick apart their key differences.
I must start by reflecting back on a time when I had to sit on the floor with my legs crossed like a pretzel. Certainly not the best days of my life, but I survived. All I can remember is going to some camp on a grade school field trip where we were supposed to have a “ton of fun.” Upon arriving, I remember running off the big yellow bus and being herded into some room in a lodge style building lit by those eye-exasperating fluorescent lights with lots of windows and the shades drawn. We sat there for a couple hours and listened to a person talk about something that we were supposed to remember before they released us from our misery into groups where we would actually get to go outside and learn about things through experience. I remember the first station my group went to was supposed to educate us on the topic of geology. We looked for rocks on the side of a hill and then we were taught about the different types of rocks that we could have found. After learning the difference between sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks, we were supposed to classify the ones we found accordingly.

I believe that this can be referred to what is known as an environmental education since it was for the most part - structured, formal and meant to teach us something. While at some point, it did allow us to use our senses and engage ourselves in the activity, we did not have a choice in the matter which means it really is not the same thing as interpretation.

Interpretation, on the other hand, is supposed to be less formal, deeply engage the audience not because they have to be there, but they want and have the choice to be there. Interpretation also addresses many principals as noted by Freeman Tilden in Interpreting our Heritage. In that book, he introduces many principals such as provoke, relate, reveal and whole, just to name a few. Provoke really means to get the audience’s attention. Relate simply means to attach meaning to the audience. Reveal is the act of presenting the meaning of what is being interpreted in a way that keeps the audience connected all the way to the end when it is all pulled together. Whole basically says that the what is being interpreted should address a main theme. While these are key components of interpretation, it is important to understand that this is not what makes interpretation different from education. Interpretation is often times much more abstract than education. Interpretation is supposed to enhance the experience of those that partake in the program.

My concluding thoughts say that Interpretation can be a form of environmental education, but not necessarily. I say this because the people listening to the interpretive program may become educated through the program. On the other hand, I do not believe that environmental education and interpretation can go hand in hand since environmental education is an entirely different way of presentation. It involves teaching people about something in a formal setting and there is not really a choice in the matter rather, there is some sort of obligation or pending force that brings the attendees to the program.