Overview: Theories which explain the mechanisms and
effects of outdoor education
Like most psychosocial fields of enquiry,
outdoor education theory is eclectic, attracting explanations
than run the gamut, including physiological, ecological,
psychological, social, political, and post-modern. Take your pick.
Really.
There have been a few
attempts to bring the various elements within a single
framework, however, the field is in need of genuine developmental theory
work.
Students and new researchers should be encouraged rather than daunted by
this lack of definitive theory -- there is at least healthy debate, promising
recent efforts and interesting new possibilities. Unfortunately
many new models lack evidence of close reading of previous
theoretical work.
So, it might help to
categorize the broad areas of outdoor education theory and map out the main tenets, thereby
offering a clearing sense of
comparison, contextualization, and integration of their myriad potential
contributions to the development of outdoor education.
In recent years, traditional
British and American perspectives of outdoor education have been increasingly under critique
(e.g., Brookes, 2003a,b).
These new
critiques and perspectives are now becoming as much now a part of the
theoretical landscape as traditional approaches, leaving the field wide
open for future theory development.
Theory Type 1: Experience-based
Arguably, the single, most dominant thread
which appears to run through and underlie virtually all theories of
outdoor education is experiential education theory, which promotes the
primary importance of needing to understand a theory of experience
(Dewey, 1938). Studying Dewey's "Experience and Education"
(1938) is recommended as an important step for those seeking a solid
grounding in the foundations of experiential and outdoor education.
This theory applied to all education and arguably to all human
experience and has been used to champion the progressive educational
movement for almost 70 years.
However, as useful and enduring as Dewey's
theory of experience have been, it it not tailored to the the outdoor
education setting and hence does not provide a satisfactory
account of human's interactions with the natural environment.
Theory Type 2: Nature-based
A second major theoretical thread are
the deep ecology or nature-based theories which emphasize the importance of humans
engaging with the natural world and coming to understand more intimately
their own place in nature, ecological knowledge in terms of both science
and spirit. Several outdoor education theorists have argued that
one of the unique, outstanding features that characterizes outdoor
education is the direct engagement with activity in nature environments.
Peter Martin's "nature as friend" theory makes this explicit. Yet, as
Hattie et al (1997) noted, surprisingly little outdoor education theory
drew in any substantial way on theorizing about the role of the natural
environment in understanding the processes and effects of outdoor
education programs.
Theory Type 3: Practice-based;
multi-dimensional
It can be argued that a limitation of both
experiential theories and deep ecology theories is that they lack direct
correspondence to practical application. Thus, outdoor education
organizations, such as Outward Bound, Project Adventure, and the
National Outdoor Leadership School, have each evolved their own
practical-theoretical programming models.
Such practice-based models concentrate on
what outdoor education organizations (or authors) have iteratively
discovered to be what they believe are the
critical combination of ingredients for outdoor education. These multi-dimensional programming models
represent a third major theoretical thread in outdoor education.
They generally emphasize: 1) the role of the individual, 2) the role of
the activities and the sequentiality of the program, 3) the role of the
environment, 4) the role of the instructor, and 5) the role of the
group. |