Improvisational theater games for children in park interpretation.

Macklin, E. Kim ; Hvenegaard, Glen T. ; Johnson, Paul E. 等

Introduction

Children are increasingly disconnected from the natural world due to urbanization, declining natural spaces, fear of the outdoors, and alternative access to the natural world through electronic media (Beck & Cable, 2002; Louv, 2005). Moreover, interpretation in many protected areas is geared toward adults (Parks Canada Agency, 2000), which is not necessarily effective for children (Beck & Cable, 2002). In order to effectively reach children, interpretive techniques and messages must be age-appropriate and relevant (Adamson, 2004; Wells & Lekies, 2006; Hvenegaard, Shultis, & Butler, 2009).

For Tilden (1977, p. 47), interpretation for children "should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach." Two frameworks explaining the cognitive development of children can help design such an approach. For Vygotsky (1997), children's cognitive development is socio-cultural in nature and continues throughout life. Thus, partners with similar levels of competence collaborate and interact with themselves, authoritative figures, and the environment to create new knowledge (Vasta, Miller, & Ellis, 2004). For Piaget, children's cognitive development is universal and passes through several predictable stages (Singer & Revenson, 1996). For example, children aged 6-12 years (the concrete operational period) can deal with things that are tangible and real (Vasta et al., 2004). Piaget believes that children increase their learning when they are active participants and when a cognitive conflict is resolved through accommodation or assimilation (Forestell, 1992).

Improvisational theater games offer a new interpretive approach for children. These activities involve loosely structured role-playing games in which groups solve problems through dialogue and activity in a creative, spontaneous, and interactive manner (Spolin, 1983). Improvisation addresses many of the learning issues described above. First, objects and activities can help children understand higher-order concepts. Second, improvisation allows children to learn in a natural manner about relationships with oneself, others, and the environment, especially when pretend play is involved (Mearns 1977). Third, children, who normally lack abstract thought, are capable of it when they understand that they are pretending (Vasta et al., 2004). Fourth, improvisation promotes learning in a cooperative and interactive atmosphere to achieve group goals (Dickinson, Neelands, & Shenton Primary School, 2006). Last, improvisation provides challenge through group problem solving and provides support through guided interaction by qualified leaders (Peterson & O'Connor, 2006). Given the interpretive possibilities of improvisation in parks, the goal of this study was to examine the dynamics, enjoyment, and perceived learning of improvisation for children.

Methods

In 2006, Banff National Park offered a new interpretive program for children, called Fostering the Future. The program consisted of mostly improvisation games (see Spolin, 1983 and Hvenegaard, Johnson, & Macklin, 2008 for names and descriptions) along with group activity games, nature walk, and interpretive talk (called Structured Story). Three interpreters received equal training to deliver the program. The program was offered Wednesday through Sunday (1:00-3:00 pm) from June 30 to August 20 at the Tunnel Mountain Campground Amphitheater. Advertising was concentrated in the campground, but extended to Banff townsite and the entire park. Each day, the interpreters modified the program to account for weather and the group's age and size.

After each program, all participants were invited to fill out a voluntary evaluation form. For children who were unable to write, their parents helped transcribe answers. The evaluation form, as prescribed by the park administration, asked the following questions:

* Which of today's activities did you enjoy the most (and the least)? Why?

* From which of today's activities did you learn the most (and the least)?

* What was the most important thing that you learned from today's activities?

* If you had one question to ask Banff National Park, what would it be?

We categorized responses into thematic groups. Interpreters also recorded relevant observations of children during the games and conversations after the games.

Results

The program ran on 29 of a possible 38 days. Each program involved an average of 7.9 activities, of which 6.2 were improvisation games. The program attracted 159 children (average of 5.5 children per program, range: 1-13), with 133 involved in completing evaluations. Of the respondent families, 91% were from Canada and 9% from the United States. Most Canadian families came from Alberta (61%), British Columbia (10%), and Saskatchewan (9%). The average age of participants was 7.5 years (range: 4-14).

When asked about the activities they enjoyed the most, children gave 93 responses, 14% of which were "everything." The most common responses involved improvisation: Telephone (16%), Camouflage (15%), Gibberish (13%), Lemonade (13%), Build-A-Story (11%), and Trees and Squirrels (11%). When asked why these activities were enjoyed, the most frequent responses provided were having fun, running around, being silly, being creative, undertaking challenges, entertaining each other, and taking part in something new.

We asked children which activities they enjoyed the least and why. Of the 65 responses received, 49% said "nothing." The activities most commonly listed (Tag, 14% and Structured Story, 11%) did not involve improvisation. The common reasons for activities being enjoyed least related to getting hurt, lasting too long, providing too much challenge, and being boring.

We asked children which activities helped them learn the most (perceived learning). We received 59 responses, 3% of which were "everything." The most common activities mentioned were Structured Story (26%), Nature Walk (15%), Micro-Hike (13%), and Three-Way Drawing (10%). The first two did not involve improvisation. We received 34 responses about activities from which children learned the least, the most common of which were Telephone (16%) and Tag (14%), with the former involving improvisation.

In terms of the most important thing they learned, children provided 63 responses, of which 51% were about natural history (e.g., ecosystems, mountain formation), 16% about individual development (e.g., having fun), 10% about group dynamics (e.g., teamwork), 10% about management and conservation (e.g., harming plants or animals), and 8% about safety (e.g., bears).

Finally, in terms of questions for the park, children provided 49 responses, of which 37% were about natural history (e.g., mountains, wildlife), 29% about management issues (e.g., bears, fires), 16% about future interpretive events (e.g., child-focused programs), 12% about safety (e.g., bears, getting lost), and 6% about miscellaneous details.

Discussion

This study examined children's enjoyment and perceived learning from an improvisation-dominated interpretive program. Children generally enjoyed the entire program, but especially the improvisation activities because they offered fun, physical activity, creativity, challenges, positive group dynamics, and novelty. These characteristics are consistent with other analyses of interpretation for children (Cessford, 1989; Hansen-Moller & Taylor, 1991; Beck & Cable, 2002). Enjoyment may have resulted from healthy social interactions, group energy, and a sense of accomplishment (Spolin, 1983; Beck & Cable, 2002; Caine et al., 2005). Some activities were enjoyed less because of difficult logistics or an incorrect matching of challenge and ability.

In terms of perceived learning, the activities rated highest by children were not improvisation games, but a traditional nature walk and interpretive talk. These activities involved sensory awareness, physical involvement, and guided interaction. According to the interpreters, children seemed to learn well from activities in which there was effective collaboration with peers (e.g., Pictionary), interaction with the interpreters, and simple messages (see Singer & Revenson, 1996; Vasta et al., 2004). For example, animals and plants on the nature walk stimulated many questions about ecology and human impact, resulting in discussions about proper behavior that minimizes impacts on the environment and ensures the safety of people and wild animals. The activities rated low for perceived learning primarily focused on increasing group cohesion and energy levels, and did not have specific learning goals.

In terms of specific perceived learning topics, children most often mentioned concepts of natural history, which is consistent with most parks' interpretive goals (e.g., understand the natural environment, maintain ecological integrity, and increase meaningful visitor experiences) (Tilden, 1977; Cessford, 1989; Beck & Cable, 2004). Park managers would also be pleased to know that children learned about management, conservation, and safety issues (Government of Canada, 2007).

Other researchers promote the use of thematic interpretation, which increases children's ability to recall and apply information (Tarlton & Ward, 2006). However, interpretation involving improvisation has less thematic structure; nevertheless, children in our study stated that they learned information relevant to the park and to their experiences. Furthermore, children wanted to learn more about natural history concepts, park management, and future interpretive events.

Conclusion

These results suggest that incorporating improvisation games into interpretive programs can contribute to enjoyment and perceived learning of children. Sensory awareness, physical involvement, collaboration, creativity, and guided interaction helped increase enjoyment and perceived learning. These characteristics support the models proposed by learning theorists. In particular, Piaget argues that play is critical to a child's cognitive, social, and emotional development (Singer & Revenson, 1996). The act of playing enables children to determine their role in their environment (Mearns, 1977) and helps to communicate complex ideas (Edgar, 2006). Furthermore, children up to the age of 12 can learn about abstract concepts by interacting with tangible objects, using all of their senses (Vasta et al., 2004). Moreover, the activities resulted in appropriate insights and curiosity about Banff National Park. These new interpretive approaches are critical today when many children have fewer opportunities to connect to nature.

Further study on the use of improvisation activities, and their ability to reconnect children to nature, will be helpful. First, research should evaluate knowledge retention from these activities over time. Second, research should explore the influence of spontaneous content inherent in these theater games, compared to the goal of thematic interpretation (Tarlton & Ward, 2006). Third, research should compare evaluation responses among children with different ages and levels of cognitive development (Kellert & Westervelt, 1984). Last, research should compare the effectiveness of different types of creative dramatics in enabling children to learn about themselves and their role in their environment (Mearns, 1977).

In terms of limitations, we had with little control over the number of participants each day, so it was difficult to play every game regularly. Second, parents may have influenced responses from younger children. Third, the program variability and small sample size did not allow for statistical comparisons among activities.

In the future, the age range of participants should be restricted to enhance the potential learning among ages within similar cognitive development stages. As well, pre-registration would help improve program planning. In general, improvisation can contribute to the enjoyment and perceived learning for children in interpretive programs, but it is important to consider group dynamics and individual preferences, since these factors may influence a child's enjoyment or learning potential of any activity (Caine et al., 2005).

Acknowledgments

C. Hanson, R. Bray, M. Wilde, and S. Tarrington helped deliver and administer the program. Banff National Park and Parks Canada's Personal Interpretation Innovation Fund provided financial support.

References

Adamson, D. (2004). Learning through play the natural way: Nature based activities promoting environmental education for young children. Langley, BC: Adamson Educational Services.

Beck, L., & Cable, T. T. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2005). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: The fieldbook for making connections, teaching and the human brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cessford, G. R. (1989). Interpretation for children. Student Paper No. 1, Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln College.

Dickinson, R., Neelands, J., & Shenton Primary School. (2006). Improve your primary school through drama. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Edgar, T. (2006). Making it up as we go along: The role of pretend games in early environmental education. Green Teacher 80, 18-21.

Forestell, P. H. (1992). The anatomy of a whale watch: Marine tourism and environmental education. Current Journal of the National Marine Educators Association 11(1), 10-15.

Government of Canada. (2007). Banff national park management plan: A place for people. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from Parks Canada, Banff National Park Web site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/docs/plan1/chap5/plan1e_E.asp.

Hansen-Moller, J., & Taylor, G. (1991). Creative nature interpretation for children. Children's Environments Quarterly 8(2), 30-37.

Hvenegaard, G., Johnson, P, & Macklin, K. (2008). Improvisational theater games to engage children. The Interpreter 4(2), 6-8.

Hvenegaard, G. T., Shultis, J., & Butler, J. R. (2009). The role of interpretation. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management (3rd ed.) (pp. 202-234). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Kellert, S. R., & Westervelt, M. O. (1984). Children's attitudes, knowledge and behaviors towards animals. Children's Environments Quarterly 1(3), 8-11.

Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Mearns, H. (1977). Creative drama in the classroom. In J. Cottrell (Ed.), Teaching with creative dramatics (pp. 19-39). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Parks Canada Agency. (2000). "Unimpaired for future generations"? Protecting ecological integrity with Canada's national parks, Vol. II: Setting a new direction for Canada's national parks. Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. Cat. No. R62-323/2000-2E. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Peterson, L., & O'Connor, D. (2006). Kids take the stage: Helping young people discover the creative outlet of theater (2nd ed.). New York: Back Stage Books.

Singer, D. G., & Revenson, T. A. (1996). A Piaget primer: How a child thinks (2nd ed.). New York: Plume.

Spolin, V. (1983). Improvisation for the theater (2nd ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Tarlton, J. L., & Ward, C. J. (2006). The effect of thematic interpretation on a child's knowledge of an interpretive program. Journal of Interpretation Research 11(1), 7-33.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Vasta, R., Miller, S. A., & Ellis, S. (2004). Child psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press. Published originally in 1926 in Russian, Translated by R. Silverman.

Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments 16(1), 1-24.

E. Kim Macklin

Banff National Park

P.O. Box 5552, Banff, Alberta T1L 1G6 Canada

(403) 556-6636

kim.macklin@pc.gc.ca

Glen T. Hvenegaard

Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies

University of Alberta, Augustana Campus

4901-46 Avenue, Camrose, Alberta T4V 2R3 Canada

(780) 679-1574; fax: (780) 679-1590

glen.hvenegaard@ualberta.ca

Paul E. Johnson

Professor of Drama

University of Alberta, Augustana Campus

4901-46 Avenue, Camrose, Alberta T4V 2R3 Canada

(780) 679-1612

paul.johnson@ualberta.ca