You’ll all be happy to know that I visited a small museum with an interactive computer exhibit that told me all about the flora and fauna of the park we were in as well as the hiking trails I could choose to walk on.
In the Everglades interp centre today there was a computer telling me all about the mosquitoes in the area!
I have yet to go on an interpretive program, but have seen a couple rangers straying around the areas we have visited. the museum and interp centre there were also some examples of more conventional non-personal educational media – such as a board with several swatches of animal pelts asking the visitor to decide which animal each pelt belonged to.
This will be interesting to look into… but I know I was more captivated by the computer exhibit than a poster on the wall, maybe not more than the pelt guessing game though! and it will be interesting to see how effective an interpretive program is compared to the computerized exhibits!
Apart from what you find in the literature about the use of computer-mediated commmunication in nature centres, I wonder what motivates any one of us to prefer the computers over the pelts? When I first think about what I’d prefer, I’d say the computer over the pelts because I would feel the computer was more interactive and involved more of my senses. But on further reflection and dependent upon the quality of the display, the pelts might involve just as many senses (more because I could use the sense of smell). So I’d have to admit that the computer is more attractive because it’s passive and structured (sigh).
You might want to take a poll of your fellow field-trippers to see what they prefer.
This reminds me of some really great computer exhibits they have at the Tyrell Museum.
Possibly just because it’s a dinosaur museum, but I have very fond memories of trying to rebuild dinosaurs from bones and the like on the computer exhibits, which now that I think about it, must have been pretty cutting edge for about 10 years ago.