Overview of outdoor education theory to dateTheory-building is vital for the future of research and practice in outdoor education. This chapter explains an initial conceptualization of a systems framework for outdoor education theory. It is proposed that a systems view is necessary in order to model the dynamic and complex nature of the interactions which occur between the multiple elements involved in outdoor education programs. Current outdoor education theories are reviewed in light of the systems framework. In this way a novel and thorough review of outdoor education theory is presented, with the intention of providing some initial steps towards more full-scale systems theory development in outdoor education. In the past, outdoor education has used and developed theory in a rather ad hoc manner. Outdoor education programs are generally not closely constructed according to explicit theoretical principles (in contrast, for example, to typical psychological intervention programs); if theories are used, they tend to be imported from psychology or education, as opposed to outdoor education. This is a reflection of the lack of the development of outdoor education theory. Whilst some initial theories have been proposed, none of them have been pursued, researched, and developed over a period of time. Some argue that the lack of dependence on theory frees programs and instructors up to experiment and explore, rather than constrained to follow theoretical prescriptions. However, such draconian implementation of theory seems unlikely, particularly given the lack of definitive recommendations from existing outdoor education theory. There is also evidence suggestive that engagement in theory will enhance program quality. For example, the meta-analytic outdoor education research (Neill, 2002) has found the strongest and most consistent effects to emerge from programs with a strong personal development philosophy (Hattie, et al., 1997; Marsh, P. E., 1999). Whilst philosophy is not theory, it is an important precursor and does suggest the potential value of outdoor education programs directly engaging in better understanding the underlying thinking and assumptions behind their methods and processes. Where examination of theoretical principles can occur hand-in-hand with practical experimentation and research, then a rich combination of ingredients exist for program and theory development. Overview of a systems framework for outdoor education theoryJust as Dewey (1938/1997) gave the progressive education a critical, theoretical platform, so too outdoor education needs to develop substantial theoretical footing. The proposed systems framework incorporates several past theoretical models in outdoor education, particularly Barret and Greenaway (1995), Beard and Wilson (2002), and Walsh and Golins (1976). Seven domains are proposed as underlying the phenomena of outdoor education. The first six domains are very similar to those proposed by McKenzie (2000a,b; 2002) . The domains refer to the:
What occurs during an outdoor education program can be understood as a complex interaction between elements within each of these domains. For example, a participants' experience of their first rock climb might be seen as arising from an interaction between:
Skepticism and caution towards such a complex conceptual model is likely warranted, particularly for a field such as outdoor education which has thrived on simple principles. There is much to be said for “letting the mountains speak for themselves” (James, 1980) and this approach is likely to continue to guide participation in most outdoor and adventure activities (outdoor recreation). There is also much to be said for the utility of the simplest experiential learning model -- a 3-stage learning cycle (Do, Review, Plan), which is widely used (outdoor education). But simple approaches to the development or healing of the human psyche generally don't work in practice. The growth and evolution of the psyche is complex in nature and thus intervention programs which seek to systematically effect change need to be based on an organized understanding of dynamic, complex processes. Description of the systems frameworkThe task of developing such a framework presents as challenging, because there is a complex milieu, or force field (see Field Theory - Kurt Lewin), of influences upon a participant’s subjective experience and the participant’s subjective experience, in turn, influences the milieu. Thus, the subjective experience of an individual is a key theoretical domain to be considered and can be understood as constituting the phenomenological reality that occurs within a series of instants through time. As time progresses, the individual stores past experiences. This "past self", together with its interaction with the surrounding milieu, determines the individual's phenomenological experience of the moment. The interactive dynamic between stored experience and present experience follows from the work John Dewey (1935/1997) whose work is considered central to the underlying philosophy of outdoor education. Dewey's central proposition about stored past experience interacting with the situation to produce the individual's current experience lies at the heart of the development of the systems framework. The interaction between past and present self can be represented symbolically as I « Ii, where I refers to a person’s stored past experience, Ii refers to an individuals phenomenological reality within a moment, and « indicates an interactive relationship. The subscript i is used as a temporal referent to indicate an instant, and it can be used as a variable which changes over time, thus I = ¦(åIi). This interactive principle can be extended to all the other domains. In any moment (i), a domain's stored past interacts with the other domain's stored pasts, thereby creating the phenomena of each domain, indicated by the domain symbol with a subscript. Dewey (1938/1997) emphasizes the importance of the teacher understanding the interaction between I and Ii and managing appropriate learning activity for the student so that what is experienced and stored is conducive, rather than limiting, for future experience. Thus Dewey seems to emphasize the interaction between Ii, the teacher (Fi) and the activity (Ai) in any given moment. Thus, we have two further interactions which can be expressed as Fi « Ii and Ai « Ii. In the outdoor education setting, three further domains seem to be involved in interactive relationships with Ii. These are the environment (Ei), the Program (Pi) and the Group (Gi). Finally, we can ascribe remaining influential elements to the category of culture (Ci). When considered together these propositions can be expressed in a structural model (see Figure 2.1).
Note: i = a temporal instant; I = the stored past “individual reality”; Ei = a temporal instant of “environmental reality”; Ai = a temporal instant of “activity reality”; Pi = a temporal instant of “program reality”; Gi = a temporal instant of “group reality”; Fi = a temporal instant of “facilitator reality”; Ci = cultural milieu (not shown). Figure 2.1. Structural model depicting the interactive relationship between an individual participants’ phenomenological reality (Ii) and domains of influence in outdoor education. Having emphasized the framework in terms of the relationship between Ii and the other domains, it seems worthwhile to now briefly describe what is meant by the temporal phenomenological states (i) of each domain:
Clearly much more could be said about each of the domains and about their interrelationships. The point of the current chapter, however, is simply to outline this conceptual systems framework to facilitate discussion about the current study's investigation of the impacts of outdoor education programs on personal effectiveness outcomes. Outdoor education theoriesThis section reviews several major contributions to outdoor education theory -- Walsh and Golins (1976), Barret and Greenaway (1995), McKenzie, 2002, Hattie, et al. (1997), Beard and Wilson (2002) and Frumkin (2001). Each of these sources is discussed in the context of proposed systems framework, with particular effort made to integrate the models into the systems framework. Outward Bound Process model (Walsh & Golins, 1976)Within outdoor education, the most widely cited theoretical model is the Outward Bound process model (Walsh & Golins, 1976). The article introduced important theoretical constructs, but is rarely cited beyond the outdoor education literature because it is unpublished and difficult to obtain. Despite its obscurity, the Walsh and Golins (1976) paper, entitled “The Exploration of the Outward Bound Process”, which was written for the “inquiring practitioner” (p. ii), remains seminal to outdoor education theory. In their introduction, they describe the problem that: There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what constitutes the Outward Bound process. It is not something which is necessarily 23 days in length; has training, expedition phases, a solo, final expedition, and a marathon; or is conducted by an Outward Bound school. Such a time frame, activities, and phases are connected with a standard Outward Bound course. They were all deduced, whether tacitly or explicitly, from the principles of the Outward Bound process. Nor is it the values, such as: self-preservation, self actualization, perseverance, initiative, reflection, experimentiveness, etc. These values which are expressed often through and about participation in an adventure-based educational experience like Outward Bound are important, but they do not give a practitioner much operational leverage. Indeed, they do or could apply to other processes as well. Instead we are talking about the structures, components, and conditions whose presence and interaction insure that an experience is conducive along the lines of Outward Bound (i.e. aids the persons involved in reaching the objectives intended.)” (Walsh & Golins, 1976, pp. i-ii). Walsh and Golins (1976, p. 1) argue that: A knowledge of the process will permit one to strengthen program. First, it helps refine what it is the program does, and indeed, can do. Such refinement increases the probability of pertinent evaluation; necessary for responsive programming. Second, the clarification of process gives the adaptor predictive criteria with which to design goals and objectives, and the possibility to reorganize them as the needs of the parties involved in the program change. They then outline their conception of the Outward Bound process: It is important at the outset to distinguish what is meant by process from what is meant by program. People dealing with the Outward Bound process have a tendency to confuse program with process.
A process exists as a generalized series of conditions, events and objects which interact to produce a desired effect. A program, on the other hand, is a distillation of the process. It exists as a specific set of activities, sequence of events, for a specific population, which is limited in space and time.
Education has sought to identify the broad area of process and program. The overlap is considerable and at times inseparable. The following process definition is a conceptual view of adventure-based programs similar to Outward Bound.
Remember that a process exists as a generalized series of conditions, events, and objects which interact to produce a desired effect. Keeping this generic description in mind, the Outward Bound process functions as characteristic problem-solving tasks set in a prescribed physical and social environment which impel the participant to mastery of these tasks and which in turn serves to reorganize the meaning and direction of his life experience.
The “conditions” of the process are all the characteristics or features which qualify the events as objects. The events are the problem-solving tasks, and the objects are, of course, the learner and the instructor (the human elements). Mastery and reorganization of the meaning and direction of experience are the interaction.
By mastery is meant completing the tasks posed, as well as, the degree to which that contributes to future problem-solving ability. The completion of the tasks becomes the justification and resource for an attitude and ability towards mastery of future experience.” (Walsh & Golins, 1976, p. 1-2; my italics) Walsh and Golins’ conceptualization can be recaste in the language of the systems framework, as follows:
Although the systems framework and Walsh and Golins’ (1976) conceptualization of the Outward Bound process are closely related, it is worth point out some distinctions. For example, the Outward Bound process model emphasizes "desired effects", whereas the systems framework does not pre-prescribe value to any particular goals. The systems framework is a generic structural model which can be used to examine all outdoor education phenomena, not just the desired outcomes. The Outward Bound process model also begins with the notion of a motivated participant, which is problematic. There are a variety of types and levels of motivation an individual brings, not just those related to the "desired effects". Thus, the systems framework deals more generically with the individuals stored past and its interaction with the other domains in order to create a phenomenological state for an individual. A further criticism, or caution, that needs to made about the Outward Bound process model is that it seems proceed in a step by step manner, from the motivated participants in a novel physical and social environment to engagement with problem-solving tasks through which dissonance then mastery, reorganization of meaning, and then transfer occur. The systems framework also allows us to conceptualize processes which may not follow this path. Finally, it is important to understand that the Outward Bound process model, as with the other outdoor education theories, is anthrocentric. In other words, it emphasizes the human process and outcome of outdoor education programs, as opposed to the systems framework which conceptualizes the experience of the individual as one of several domains within the holistic phenomena of outdoor education. Barret and Greenaway (1995)Commissioned by the Foundation for Outdoor Adventure in the UK, Barret and Greenaway (1995) produced a major review of outdoor education research and theory literature which focused on youth development. This review (currently out of print) remains as the most comprehensive, well organized existing review of “the role and value of outdoor adventure in young people’s personal and social development”. Barret and Greenaway recognized the need for developing a structure within which to incorporate and discuss the various outdoor education research findings and ad hoc theory. They conceptualize “outdoor adventure” as consisting of: a ‘package’ containing a number of different ingredients, any of which may have a significant impact on the personal and social development of the young people involved...In addition to adventure activities, the package contains elements such as: the natural environment, the group, the staff and the learning climate. Somewhere in the package there is a philosophy, a set of values and a way of working that bind these ingredients together...The relative importance of each ingredient, and the kinds of objectives that are followed, are influenced by the various educational contexts in which outdoor adventure is provided. (Barret & Greenaway, 1995, p. *).
Figure 2.2. The ingredients of outdoor adventure (reproduced with permission from Roger Greenaway) Similar to Walsh and Golins (1976), Barret and Greenaway (1995) have attempted to account for the multi-dimensional, interactive nature of the various aspects of outdoor education. In Figure 2.2, many similar elements can be seen to the systems framework -- the group, the facilitator ("staff"), the environment, the activity (“adventure” and “physical activity”), the program philosophy (“learning climate”), and “other factors”. Interestingly, Barret and Greenaway incorporate “aims and objectives”, “philosophy and values”, and “way of working” in the centre of their model, emphasizing the importance of the underlying nature of the program (P). In the systems framework, the program domain would also include elements such as staff selection criteria, staff training, and program length. The Barret and Greenaway (1995) model is more broadly applicable than the Outward Bound process model, and is less linear and restrictive, but it lacks clear organization and does not seem to have been used to guide research or practice. Learning Combination Lock (Beard & Wilson, 2002)As with the other outdoor education models, the "learning combination lock" centers upon understanding an individual participants' experience (Beard & Wilson, 2002). The model illustrates the potentially infinite array of elements within an experiential learning setting. The combination lock metaphor implies that a range of different experiences can be "dialed" by varying combinations of elements in the external environment (places and elements), the sensory modality used by participants, and the participants' internal environment (emotions, forms of intelligence, and ways of learning). The learning combination lock lends itself to the design of "artificial" experiential and adventure education programs where activities are, indeed, "dialed" up from a "bag of tricks". The main theoretical advance of the model is that it incorporates individual difference elements which have become popular in educational psychology. However the model does not incorporate the role of the instructor, group, program philosophy, and the individual's past experience.
Figure 2.3. The Learning Combination Lock (reproduced with permission from Colin Beard) The systems framework domainsParticipantEach participant is unique, consequently no two participants will experience a program or activity the same way. Each participant brings his/her own unique genetic blueprint (genotype) and his/her unique past experiences to the program. Each participant makes a unique impact on the other domains and the interactive relationships unfold. Research has commonly considered elements of the participant domain such as age, gender, and demographic background. Of increasing interest are psychological individual differences, such as personality, motivation, readiness for change, thinking and learning styles, and coping strategies. EnvironmentA number of theorists have identified an unfamiliar physical environment as an important contributor to program outcomes (Barret & Greenaway, 1995; Beard & Wilson, 2002; Kimball & Bacon, 1993; Nadler, 1993; Walsh & Golins, 1976). In residential outdoor education programs, participants live away from home and are involved in the program 24 hours a day. The programs take place in novel, predominantly natural environments which are quite distinct from participants’ typical home, school or work environments. Hunt (1989, cited in Barret & Greenaway, 1995a) argued that the residential experience is a key condition for outdoor activities to become learning experiences: “participants should live together closely as a group, sharing the day-to-day tasks, the duties and the lighter moments of community living as well as the excitements of the outdoor life, over a period of time” (p. 16); It is thought that the unfamiliar environment facilitates participants in developing new perspectives about themselves and their normal environments. In the new environment, participants are encouraged to experiment with "new psychological strategies or a fresh sense of identity” (Kimball & Bacon, 1993, p. 26) within the temporary, safe environment of support provided by the group, the instructor, and the program. The role of an unfamiliar environment for facilitating change was supported by Hattie, J. M.'s meta-analysis which found off-site self-concept change programs more effective than school-based programs. The unfamiliar environment in outdoor education is also used intentionally to create a heightened state of arousal and mental focus. The element of surprise is intentionally used and information is intentionally withheld to help create a sense of mystery and excitement as the program unfolds. This captivating nature of outdoor education is difficult to replicate in familiar, known environments. Many argue that simply being in nature has many inherent psychological, spiritual, physical, and pedagogical benefits. Frumkin (2001), for example, recently reviewed several different sources of research evidence which suggest that nature has preventative health effects. Many programs rely on a "let the mountains speak for themselves" philosophy (James, 1980), believing in the inherent value of being in natural environments. ActivityOutdoor education programs are characterized by their multiple variety of activities, which are intertwined to create a meaningful sequence. Commonly activities are chosen with a development-by-challenge philosophy in mind, thus the use of games and initiative activities, hiking, camping, paddling, rock climbing, ropes challenge courses, and so on. These activities are commonly structured as problem-solving tasks which are difficult but with a high likelihood of success (Hattie, et al., 1997; Walsh & Golins, 1976). There are also many other activities such as solo, which are more about reflecting or enjoying nature and life. Service activities are also common, which aim to develop a spirit of service to other human beings and to contribute to the broader community. Activities can be understood as unfolding a "wave" of experience, or as following stages, as in the experiential learning learning cycles. When several activities are interwoven, complex but carefully arranged experiences can unfold for participants. Martin, Lieberman, and Neill (2002) have described "wave theory" as used by Outward Bound in the Czech Republic, which involves intentionally sequencing separate, but interacting waves of physical, emotional, social, and intellectual activities. When a development-by-challenge philosophy is followed (Neill & Dias, 2001), activities are usuaully structured so as to be of increasing difficulty. With each success, participants skills and self-efficacy are increased and they can move on to more complex tasks. This follows Bandura's self-efficacy theory, that “a resilient sense of efficacy requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort” (p. 80). Failure may also play a role in achieving positive outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Witman, 1995). Bandura (1997) states that “some difficulties and setbacks…serve a beneficial purpose in teaching that success usually requires sustained effort. Difficulties provide opportunities to learn how to turn failure into success by honing one’s capabilities to exercise better control over events” (p. 80). Specific types of activities may engender particular types of outcomes. For example, adventure programming and adventure-based counseling models developed by Project Adventure emphasize a sequence of activities from "icebreaking and energizing" activities and “trust, empathy and community activities” before undertaking activities with higher levels of physical, emotional and social risk. With the variety of possible activities and sequences available, it seems important for research to help identify "packages of activity" (programs) which are most effective rather than trying to chase down a single silver bullet activity which probably doesn't exist. ProgramOutdoor education programs with a clear philosophy about personal growth tend to be more effective than programs which are less clear in their philosophy (Hattie, et al., 1997; Marsh, P. E., 1999). Program philosophy influences many aspects, including location, staffing, program length, choice of activities, and attitude towards the way participants are treated. Specific programs, such as corporate development programs, may have more refined aims, but in general programs which emphasize the central notion of personal development seem to be more likely to effect such changes.GroupHumans are gregarious in nature and organized outdoor education programs are generally conducted in groups. Over time, groups evolve through several stages, with people developing more complex bonds and relationships. As time goes by, individual's identities and behaviors are shaped by evolving group norms. Experiencing group development can, in and of itself, be a rewarding experience for participants. Outdoor education programs are almost invariably conducted in groups ranging in size from a few to over 20, but group sizes of between about 8 and 16 are the most common. The way in which groups are structured is often discussed and debated by practioners, with several merits and limitations for both homogenous and heterogenous groups. Common group variables of interest include group size, group gender, cultural/racial mix, and ability/behavior mix. Research in the traditional classroom setting has found a relationship between smaller class sizes and learning outcomes (e.g., Riggins, 1986), but this variable has yet to be examined in outdoor education research. Single-sex programs have been found to more effective, on average, than co-education programs (Hattie, et al., 1997). Perhaps of greater relevance are the group psychodynamics, which Ringer (2002) has argued are critical to experiential education groups. The level of social support, for example, has been found to be predictive of growth in psychological resilience (Neill & Dias, 2001). Witman (1995) found that “helping/assisting others,” “realizing the importance of caring about self and others,” “getting support of other participants” and “feeling like part of the group” were amongst the top six most important (out of 16) program characteristics as ranked by participants. The high level of social support, and evolving group cohesion which helps people to express their emotions emotions honestly would seem to satisfy an important, basic human need in a unique way and thereby allow the participant to engage in higher explorations and developments of his/her self (Maslow, 1954). Of course this is by no means true of all groups or all participants, but it illustrates some of the development potential for outdoor education by operating in the context of group. InstructorThe instructor is considered by many to be critical to the outdoor education process, although the degree of emphasis on the instructor varies widely between cultures, organizations, programs and instructors themselves. In many ways standardized programs, such as those developed by Outward Bound and the National Outdoor Leadership School are designed to be "instructor-proof" in that the program design more or less guarantees good results, as long a competent instructor is employed and appropriately trained. On the other hand, theorists such as Priest and Gass (1997) have consistently emphasized that particular methods of facilitation and instructor competencies are important determinants of the program effects on participants. Some believe that the role of the instructor is over-emphasized, whilst others think it is under-emphasized. Considerable research has attempted to identify the characteristics of “effective” instructors (e.g., Aguiar, 1986; Bartley & Williams, 1988; Hendy, 1975; Hopkins, 1982; Phipps & Claxton, 1997; Riggins, 1985; Riggins, 1986; Thomas, 1985; Wood, 1978). Most of this literature has involved ratings by participants or supervisors of instructional quality. Comparisons of instructors' demographic background factors have revealed no clear findings. Studies of instructor personality have been more revealing. Hendy (1975) found that the more highly rated Outward Bound instructors were typically reserved, bright, dominant, tender-minded, imaginative, forthright, experimenting, and creative. Bartley and Williams (1988) report finding that “instructor personality…had small but significant direct effects on course outcomes” (p. 6). Thomas (1985) reported a positive relationship between an instructor’s self-concept and the amount of self-concept change their participants realize. Instructors with high standards accompanied by personal warmth and empathy (Dyson, 1995; Hopkins & Putnam, 1993) may achieve stronger effects with participants. Dyson (1995) and Riggins (1986) found a relationship between “teacher expectations” and “student growth”. Riggins (1986) commented that that having high, yet attainable, expectations of participants, instructors creates "a type of self-fulfilling prophecy” (p. 3). A critical role of the instructor appears to be as a conduit and coordinator of feedback to the participant. Being accepting of participants and providing encouraging, nonjudgmental, clear, regular feedback is believed to contribute to participant growth (Brackenreg, Luckner, & Pinch, 1994; Conrad & Hedin, 1981; Hattie et al., 1997; Hopkins & Putnam, 1993; Wood, 1978). Communicating individually with participants (Conrad & Hedin, 1981) and being empathetic. Given the challenging, confronting nature of typical outdoor education programs, the instructor has an important role in guiding the activities and participants so that the change of negative outcomes is minimal. Hopkins and Putnam (1993, for example, reported that positive effects of outdoor education experiences could be negated by the influence of a “competitive, confrontational and unsympathetic” instructor. Culture Several authors have commented on cultural differences in the practice of outdoor education (e.g., Neill, 2001; Priest, 19*; Purdie & Neill, 1999, 2002; Roberts & Rodriguez, 1996). Programs in various countries and regions make cultural assumptions about participants and the relative importance of various program elements and processes. Attitudes towards risk, communicating feelings, and relating to the nature environment vary widely and influence outdoor education programs, often implicitly. For example, the "adventure programming" paradigm (Priest & Gass, 1997) is well accepted in North America programming, but is rejected in several other cultures, such as in many European countries, as being too prescriptive. Culture also influences important program elements such as program length, location, program difficulty, and the degree to which various program modalities are emphasized (physical, emotional, social, intellectual, or spiritual). ConclusionThe theoretical outdoor education literature has consistently emphasized the individual, environment, activity, program, group, instructor, and cultural domains. Elements from these domains constantly interact to create the phenomena associated with outdoor education programs, such as personal development effects for participants. Outdoor education theories such as the Outward Bound process model can be understood as subsets of a broader systems framework. The framework can help guide theory development, research design and programming efforts. |
