3.0

Created by National Park Service staff and edited by David L. Larsen, [b:Meaningful interpretation: how to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources|12762220|Meaningful interpretation how to connect hearts and minds to places, objects, and other resources|David L. Larsen|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|17905394] is a solid reference for rangers, interpreters, and anyone who works with heritage resources or place-based education.

“Interpretation provokes the discovery of personal meaning, connection, and care about the resource. Interpretation also facilitates democracy. It allows for and stimulates a conversation of multiple meanings and points of view. Interpretation encourages audiences to find themselves in the resource as well as engage, comprehend, and appreciate the perspectives of others.” (59)

Interpretation, while working in tandem with education to inspire a love of learning, is not quite the same thing. Education seeks to teach facts and critical thinking, whereas the interpretive approach seeks to foster a learning environment where visitors can form their own empathy and connections to the tangible and intangible elements of a given place. This volume provides examples and interpretive tools that can be utilized when working with historical, cultural, and natural resources.

“Your job is not leading people to the meanings you think they should know and feel. Your job is to help people discover their own meanings. When you do your job well, people might come to conclusions you don’t agree with. So be it. If people come to care about your park, you’ve done your job!” (176-77)

As this book functions as a learning tool for the interpreter with sections for reflection, there are moments of repetition, though this does allow for easier retention of key takeaways in different contexts. If you are interested in studying this topic, I would recommend working through this book with someone else—many of the concepts presented are more so conversation starters than finalized theory.

Rating: 3.5 stars