194 Trends in Heritage Interpretation Toward Standards and Certification Tim Merriman1 Abstract: The National Association for Interpretation (NAI) and the National Park Service (NPS) have each developed certification programs for natural and cultural heritage interpreters. The two programs were designed to meet different needs and they are different in how they have been implemented, though having many similarities. This trend toward standards and certification in the heritage interpretation field is likely to continue into the indefinite future and should improve the quality of interpretive programs in general as adoption is more widespread. Introduction Most professions develop certification programs and set well-defined standards for performance at some point in the evolution of the field and its practices. After decades of debate about how to do this in the heritage interpretation profession, two organizations have embarked upon certification programs. These programs will likely result in many changes and improvements in how the interpretive process of communication is applied in coming years. National Park Service Certification of Competencies Heritage interpretation has been used by the National Park Service (NPS) nearly since its inception in 1916 as a major approach to building understanding with visitors of the meanings inherent in the unique natural and cultural resources they manage. When Freeman Tilden wrote the classic book Interpreting Our Heritage in 1957, he had studied the interpretive work of the NPS thoroughly, and he used many of its programs as examples. Over the past 70 years the approaches to interpretation have changed, but clear standards did not emerge until the NPS Interpretive Development Program was created in 1994. It was developed at Mather Training Center under the supervision of Training Manager David Dahlen, with the input and assistance of more than 150 professionals at all levels of the organization. The program debuted in 1996. The Maryland State Department of Education’s model for development of standards was employed in writing the training modules, rubrics, and procedures. The NPS developed ten interpretive competencies and identified rubrics for each one that became the standards against which individual performance is judged. Individuals can complete training modules entirely on their own. No specific training is required, but NPS training is offered. Videos or other written evidences of performance are submitted for evaluation, and trained reviewers evaluate them. The desirable score is “Meets Certification,” but some are returned to applicants with “Approaches Certification.” This includes advice on how to improve performance before resubmitting the materials for review. Parks that have adopted the program require that specific certifications be attained to get promotions in the professional ranger series. Many parks have adopted the program, and hundreds of NPS employees have submitted their work for review. The training modules and standards are available via the Internet for anyone wanting to download or read them at www.nps.gov/idp/interp. Corky Mayo, Manager of Interpretation and Education for NPS, reports that he sees a real improvement in programs that have adopted the Interpretive Development Program. Ultimately that is the real value of the program—improved performance and the stewardship that results. The reward for the individual who participates is the hope of promotion and self-improvement. The primary challenge for the NPS lies in getting more parks to fully implement the Interpretive Development Program, encouraging all interpreters to participate. The trainers at Mather Training Center provide courses each year for both the reviewers and the interpreters submitting materials for review. As more and more professionals are trained, it would reasonably follow that more parks will adopt the program. National Association for Interpretation Certification The National Association for Interpretation (NAI) was created in 1988 by merging the Association of Interpretive Naturalists (AIN) and the Western Interpreters Association (WIA). AIN began in 1954 with a meeting of naturalists at Bradford Woods in Indiana, and WIA started just a few years later in California. Members of both groups debated the value of a certification or accreditation program through the years. In the past three decades, any 1 Executive Director, National Association for Interpretation, P.O. Box 2246, Fort Collins, CO 80522. E-mail: [email protected] attempt to create such a program resulted in disagreements about the impact on membership. Market research in recent years indicated that about one-third of NAI members wanted a certification program for individuals. Another third seemed generally opposed to creation of such a program, and the remaining third was indifferent. In 1997 Lisa Brochu, a Fellow Award recipient of the association and a professional planner, offered to develop the program. Knowledge of the newly developed certification of competencies with NPS was of some influence in the decision to do this. It also seemed like an idea too often discussed and not pursued. The resulting program was completed and approved by the Board of Directors for implementation in early 1998. Exam questions were developed by a committee of Fellows including Lisa Brochu, John Hanna, Gary Mullins, and Tim Merriman, along with then President Cem Basman who had encouraged development of the program. Four categories of certification were developed: Certified Heritage Interpreter, Certified Interpretive Manager, Certified Interpretive Trainer, and Certified Interpretive Planner. Applicants pay a fee of $100 for members and $150 for nonmembers and must have a degree in science, history, art or related fields or 8,000 hours of experience in the field. An objective and essay exam is also required in each category. Other evidences of performance are required that are appropriate to each category. Videos are required in all but the planner category to challenge the candidate to demonstrate her or his communication skills in practice. The candidate must attain an average score of 80% on all elements of the program. Three Fellows of the association serve as the review panel that grades submissions. In the first two years of the program, more than 100 have started the process but only six have completed it. Most report that the