18316 version 2
Page 1 of 5
Evaluate and analyse interpretive activities
Level
5
Credits
5
Purpose
People credited with this unit standard are able to: convert the objectives of
an interpretation plan into performance standards; evaluate an interpretive
activity; and analyse the results of an evaluation, and recommend future
action.
Subfield
Tourism
Domain
Visitor Interpretation
Status
Registered
Status date
22 May 2009
Date version published
22 May 2009
Planned review date
31 December 2014
Entry information
Recommended: Unit 18311, Prepare an interpretation
plan.
Accreditation
Evaluation of documentation and visit by NZQA and
industry.
Standard setting body (SSB)
ServiceIQ
Accreditation and Moderation Action Plan (AMAP) reference
0078
This AMAP can be accessed at http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do.
Special notes
1
The majority of training delivery and assessment will normally occur in the workplace
but the underpinning theory may be conducted by an accredited provider.
2
A peer can be a colleague, manager, or the person assessing. Peer evaluation does
not have to take place simultaneously with assessment of Element 2.
 New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2016
18316 version 2
Page 2 of 5
3
Legislation relevant to this unit standard includes but is not limited to – Health and
Safety in Employment Act 1992; Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation
Act 2001; Land Transport Act 1998; Occupiers’ Liability Act 1962; Conservation Act
1987; Copyright Act 1994; Historic Places Act 1993; Local Government Act 2002;
Marine Reserves Act 1971; National Parks Act 1980; Reserves Act 1977; Resource
Management Act 1991; Consumer Guarantees Act 1993; Fair Trading Act 1986;
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and their subsequent amendments.
4
Recommended texts
Brochu, L. & Merriman, T. (2008). Personal Interpretation: Connecting Your Audience
to Heritage Resources. Fort Collins, Colo.: InterpPress.
Beck, L. & Cable, T. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen guiding
principles for interpretation nature and culture (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL.: Sagamore.
Pastorelli, John. (2002). Enriching the experience: An interpretive approach to tour
guiding. Elsternwick, Vic.: Hospitality Press.
Clayworth, P. (2008). Historic heritage thematic frameworks: their use as tools for
management and interpretation. Science for Conservation, 285. Wellington, NZ:
Department of Conservation.
Ham, S.H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big
ideas and small budgets. Golden, Colo.: North American Press.
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina Press.
Veverka, J. (1994) Interpretive master planning: for parks, historic sites, forests,
zoos, and related tourism sites, for self-guided interpretive services, for interpretive
exhibits, for guided programs/tours. Nashville, Tenn.: Falcon Press.
Legacy: The magazine of the National Association for Interpretation Fort Collins,
Colo.: National Association for Interpretation, available from PO Box 2246, Fort
Collins, CO 80522, USA, or http://www.onlinelegacy.org/.
Interpretation Journal , produced by The Association for Heritage Interpretation,
available from http://www.ahi.org.uk/.
New Zealand Ministry of Tourism. (2007). New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015.
Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Tourism, available at http://www.nztourismstrategy.com/.
5
Recommended websites
Interpretation Australia – http://www.interpretationaustralia.asn.au/.
Interpretation Canada – http://www.interpcan.ca/.
6
Definitions
Evaluation of interpretation refers to a systematic, objective assessment of
performance of an interpretive technique. Evaluation analyses feedback and makes
decisions about how interpretation should be delivered in the future.
Interpretation refers to a means of communicating ideas and feelings which helps
people enrich their understanding and appreciation of their world and their place in it.
Interpretive feedback refers to the reaction of an audience or peers that have just
undergone an interpretive experience, and self feedback. The reaction is usually
provided in verbal or written form, and typically covers feelings, levels of satisfaction,
strengths and weaknesses, business performance, and suggested improvements.
Interpretive message refers to a simple yet meaningful statement that makes sense
in isolation while still supporting the overall theme, eg ‘Fire can rejuvenate a forest’.
 New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2016
18316 version 2
Page 3 of 5
Interpretive technique refers to a method of communicating ideas and messages
about a topic in such a way as to engage an audience’s feelings as well as intellect.
There are varying approaches, each following prescribed formats that help ensure
success. For instance, one type of thematic interpretation follows the P.O.E.T.R.Y
formula which states that interpretation will be Purposeful, Organised, Enjoyable (or
Engaging or Entertaining), Thematic, Relevant to the audience, and include You (the
interpreter bringing their own enthusiasm and personal touch to the mix).
Peer evaluation refers to a process whereby professionals from similar work
circumstances exercise collective judgments about the quality, importance, value and
standards of provision, as well as develop joint responsibilities for improvement and
the sharing and transfer of good practice.
Tourism workplace policies and procedures refer to documented instructions about
workplace expectations, these must include but are not limited to – customer service
delivery, personal presentation, legislation, organisational structure, business
objectives.
Elements and performance criteria
Element 1
Convert the objectives of an interpretation plan into performance standards.
Performance criteria
1.1
Objectives are explained in terms of the implications for interpretation.
Range
1.2
includes but is not limited to – product marketing, market
positioning, raising awareness, providing an educational and/or
stimulating experience, providing a contribution to the
environment, working with and supporting local communities,
manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga.
Objectives are expressed as measurable performance standards within an
optimum range specified in accordance with tourism workplace policies and
procedures.
Element 2
Evaluate an interpretive activity.
Range
includes but is not limited to – organised observation, written feedback;
aside from peer evaluation, evaluation refers to the candidate as the evaluator.
Performance criteria
2.1
Feedback method selected matches the information required to determine
whether the relevant performance standard is within an acceptable range.
2.2
Evaluation of the audience determines level of customer satisfaction.
 New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2016
18316 version 2
Page 4 of 5
2.3
Evaluation of the interpretive content and techniques identifies the level of
success of selected methods in terms of the potential for transfer and
understanding of interpretive messages or opportunities for the emotional and
behavioural change among the target audience.
2.4
Peer evaluation of the candidate identifies suitability of delivery, content, and
structure of interpretive activities for the audience.
2.5
Evaluation of marketing material identifies the degree to which interpretation is
acknowledged as part of the experience, the nature of the interpretation being
promised, and the difference between what is being promoted and what is being
delivered.
Element 3
Analyse the results of an evaluation, and recommend future action.
Performance criteria
3.1
Analysis determines whether performance standards determined for
interpretation were achieved.
Range
proportion of visitors reflecting the target audience, customer
satisfaction, transfer of interpretive messages, opportunities for
emotional and behavioural change.
3.2
Analysis is objective.
3.3
Variables are taken into account where these may affect the results of
evaluation.
Range
may include but is not limited to – change in weather, unforeseen
circumstances.
3.4
Tourism workplace policies and procedures for clarification of unexpected or
suspect results are implemented if required.
3.5
Where a variance is identified between planned outcome and actual outcome,
actions are identified to address the gap, and the actions communicated in
accordance with tourism workplace policies and procedures.
Please note
Providers must be accredited by NZQA, or an inter-institutional body with delegated
authority for quality assurance, before they can report credits from assessment against
unit standards or deliver courses of study leading to that assessment.
Industry Training Organisations must be accredited by NZQA before they can register
credits from assessment against unit standards.
 New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2016
18316 version 2
Page 5 of 5
Accredited providers and Industry Training Organisations assessing against unit standards
must engage with the moderation system that applies to those standards.
Accreditation requirements and an outline of the moderation system that applies to this
standard are outlined in the Accreditation and Moderation Action Plan (AMAP). The
AMAP also includes useful information about special requirements for organisations
wishing to develop education and training programmes, such as minimum qualifications for
tutors and assessors, and special resource requirements.
Comments on this unit standard
Please contact the ServiceIQ qualifications@serviceiq.org.nz if you wish to suggest
changes to the content of this unit standard.
 New Zealand Qualifications Authority 2016