Instrumentation

Facilitators believe that participating in adventure programmes combined with the individual’s experiences can enhance personal growth. Facilitators often see these developments through direct encounters with the individuals they are working with. Teachers and parents regularly comment on improvements or developments a child has made following participation in an adventure programme. When I worked at Bryntysilio Outdoor Education Centre I personally witnessed participants develop and flourish during their adventure programme experience. I personally believe in the value and benefit of such programmes.

The anecdotal evidence for the positive outcomes that adventure programmes achieve was once enough for individuals to believe and participate in such programmes. However there is an increasing need to gain professional credibility for the adventure industry by providing evidence of the outcomes, how they are reached and if they occur at all. Today’s society is becoming increasingly concerned with achievement and objective measures of performance. Therefore it is essential for research to be carried out so that parents, schools, local authorities and adventure programme critics can be satisfied that adventure programmes deliver results.

Research on the claimed benefits of participation in adventure programmes has been misleading. Further research is needed to clarify the findings however research cannot continue unless issues with the method are addressed. Many weaknesses in current research are associated with the methods used to measure the ‘soft skill’ outcomes (Neil – in preparation). Below are some research papers that agree and disagree on the benefits of adventure programmes:

1)      Hattie, Marsh, Neil and Richards (1997) found significant evidence for the development of many ‘soft skills’ including; leadership, independence and emotional stability through adventure programmes.

2)      Cason and Gillis (1994) found improved self-concept for adolescents participating in adventure programmes.

3)      However Kaly and Heesacker (2003) did not find evidence for the benefit of adventure programmes.

To address the issue of methodology and the measurement tool used to determine the ‘soft skill’ outcomes Neil’s (in preparation) Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) aimed to develop previous tools such as the Coopersmith (1984) Self-Esteem Inventory and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965) by incorporating a large number of life effectiveness elements that are often targeted by adventure programmes, whilst maintaining a relatively easy administration process.

Neil’s (in preparation) LEQ is an improvement on previous measures however he has highlighted that there are issues with the length of the programme, group size and the instructor’s experience. Previous research has used pre and immediately post measures for an adventure programme (Hazelworth and Wilson, 1990). However personal growth and benefits of a programme may not be seen or experienced by an individual for a considerable length of time post programme. Some changes experienced may be subtle that measurement questionnaires and scales are too insensitive to record and detect changes. The participants’ personal growth may not even be noticed by the participant and therefore how can they be expected to report them.

Although there is a need to provide evidence for the benefit of adventure programmes it is clear that there are still methodological approach and measurement tool issues to be addressed. Until these issues are resolved there will be continued inconsistency in the research findings backing up the professional credibility of adventure programmes.

In the meantime we should not devalue the anecdotal evidence available and hope that schools, organisations and individuals signing up for adventure programmes accept this evidence and experience for themselves the positive outcomes of adventure programmes.

References

Cason, D. and Gillis, L. (1994) A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents.Journal of Experiential Education.17, 40-47.

Coopersmith (1984) cited in Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of WesternSydney.

Fitts (1965) cited in Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of WesternSydney.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H., Neil, J., and Richards, G. (1997) Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research.67, 43-87.

Hazelworth, M. and Wilson, B. (1990) The effects of an outdoor adventure camp experience on self-concept. Journal of Environmental Education.21, 33-37.

Kaly, P, W. &Heesacker, M. (2003) Effects of a ship-based adventure program on adolescent self-esteem and ego-identity development.Journal of Experiential Education.26, 97-104.

Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Experiential Education

John Dewey (1938) stated that education needed to become less structured with classroom based delivery of information and have a greater focus on hands on involvement and experience. The learner’s previous personal experience will affect their experience of different situations, this means it is important that experiences are tailored to each learners needs.

Experiential learning (1) and experiential education (2) are terms that are often misunderstood and used interchangeably:

1)    Experiential Learning (EL) takes place by learning through experiences of life’s events and reflecting upon them (generally achieved by the learner themselves).  EL dates back before recorded history and remains prevalent now occurring in day to day life. Therefore is should not be seen as an ‘alternative approach’ to learning but the ‘most traditional and fundamental method’ of human learning (Neil, 2007).

2)    Whereas Experiential Education (EE) is learning through experiences that are structured and facilitated by others, such as a teacher or outdoor facilitator (Neil, 2007). The current perception of EE is that it is ‘different’ this is due to mainstream education in schools, primarily using didactic teaching and frontloading learners with facts and knowledge.

The outdoors can provide novel experiences that allow an individual to learn and grow. Dewey and Kolb believed that an individual cannot optimise their learning from an experience without external guidance (Smith, 2001).

Kolb and Fry (1975) developed a model for how we learn through experience aided by external guidance, which has since been regularly referred to in literature and used by outdoor facilitators, some of whom have little understanding of it components. The model suggests four stages must occur for an individual to learn from their experience (Figure 1). The model should be thought of as a continuing spiral which can be started from any point (Kolb and Fry, 1975). Healey and Jenkins (2000) state the benefit of Kolb and Fry’s model is that each stage is associated with separate learning styles to suit each individuals learning preference. This allows a greater application of the model.

The model is regularly used but has received little supporting research (Smith, 2001). Friedlander, Kolb and Nielsen’s (2003) criticisms of the model have arisen due to Beth, Piaget and Dewey’s queries about the definition of learning and the four stages and following processes involved in each stage of the model. It has also been suggested that the process at each stage cannot be thought of as being separate from one another, meaning that facilitation techniques cannot directly target a stage as they are too closely interlinked. Thomas (1980) believes that there is no need for the intervention of others and that the experiences should be left to speak for themselves. Suggesting that for learning to occur all of the stages may not need to be completed and that reflection can be done implicitly.

The effectiveness and the applicability of the experimental education learning model can be difficult to conclude.  There are benefits to intervening with some learners by encouraging them to discuss and reflect on their experiences to aid their learning and personal development; however learning benefits can still occur  from taking a step back and allowing the learner to self-assess their experience. Facilitators should take care when applying the model to a particular programme, giving appropriate consideration to the participant’s previous experiences and the structure of the current experience, along with thought to timings of any reflection and observations. Providing facilitators are aware of the model’s flaws and apply it where appropriate, we may hopefully assist meaningful and long term learning and personal development for individuals. 

References

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York. Collier Books.

Friedlander, F., Kolb, D. and Nielsen, E. (2003) A definitive critique of Experiential Learning Theory. [Online]. [Cited 26/04/10]. Available from URL: http://www.cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb/critique/TheCritique_final2_wtp.pdf

Kolb, D. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. In Cooper, C. (1975) Theory of Group Processes. New York. John Wiley and sons.

Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2000) Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Its Application in Geography in Higher Education, Journal of Geography, 99,185-195

Neil, J. (2007) What is Experiential Learning? [Online]. [Cited 02/04/12]. Available from URL: http://wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialLearningWhatIs.html

Smith, M. (2001) David A. Kolb On Experiential Learning. [Online]. [Cited 02/04/12]. Available from URL: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm

Thomas, J. (1980) Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves? Colorado Outward Bound School

Theories and Concepts - Self-esteem in an Adventure Setting

Self-esteem (SE) has received attention from numerous authors and researchers, however a universal definition cannot be agreed upon.  Here are the developing definition of SE:

1)      Jacobson (1964) defines SE as ‘...expressive of the harmony or discrepancy between the self representations and the wishful concept of the self’ (pg. 34).

2)       ‘Self-esteem is our ability to value ourselves…..self-esteem is our the overall opinion we have about ourselves’ (Lothian Psychological Interventions Network,  2009)

3)      However, Campbell (1990) adds to SE definition by stating how individuals may visualise themselves as closer to their ideal self in some situations more than others; presenting the idea of state SE (how a person feels about themselves at a particular moment in time) and an overall more stable level of trait SE (how a person generally feels about themselves).

State and Trait SE is shown in hierarchy, with global (trait) SE at the top with domains and sub-domains, such as physical, social and academic self-worth below (Fox, 1998). It has been suggested that successes or failures in one domain may not necessarily effect an individual’s global SE (McAuley, Blissmer, Katula, Duncan and Mihalko, 2000; Fox, 1998). If an individual experiences failures within a domain i.e. academic performance their global SE may not be affected if they do not believe academic performance to be important. However, the same individual who experiences’ failure in a sporting (physical) context, may experience an effect on their global SE, if they perceive sporting performance to be important (Marsh, 1986).

As authors and researchers are unclear on a universal definition it is clear that SE is more complex and multidimensional than previously believed. Therefore as facilitators we cannot just provide a positive experience and hope that the participant’s SE increases.  Positive experiences are needed but the participant also needs suitable feedback to aid them place worth on an experience, that will hopefully help to increase their global SE. Clifford (1979) suggests that initial failures can increase motivation to succeed and may not necessarily reduce SE. Participants with high or low self-esteem need different forms of feedback;

1)      High SE individuals benefit from high levels of positive feedback

2)      However Low SE individuals require feedback that is reinforcing of the positive aspects they believe themselves to have. If the feedback is overly positive, they will think that the comments are a miss-interpretation of their performance and not take the positive feedback on board. They need to experience lots of successful experiences in a variety of situations to increase their global SE.

Hattie, Marsh, Neil and Richards (1997) meta-analysis of SE research has identified adventure programmes as successful in increasing SE, which was most significant when programmes were specifically targeted at SE as opposed to a general personal development approach. Facilitators therefore need to decide upon what they would like to try and improve in their group and focus on that one element for it to be most successful. When aiming to improve SE facilitators should be aware of its multidimensional nature and how to best help individuals with varying level of SE.

References

Campbell, J.D. (1990) Self Esteem and clarity of the Self-concept. Journal of personality and social psychology. 59, p539-549.

Fox, K.R. (1998) Advances in the measurement of the physical self. In Duda, J.L. (Ed) Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Fitness information technology.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H., Neil, J., and Richards, G. (1997) Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research. 67, 43-87.

Jacobson, E. (1964) The Self and The Object World. Intl Universities Pr Inc.

Lothian Psychological Interventions Network  (2009) A Self Help Guide to Self Esteem.  Booklet

Marsh, H.W. (1986) Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model.  American Educational Research Journal, 23, p129-149.

McAuley, E., Blissmer, B., Katula, J., Duncan, T.E. and Mihalko, S.L. (2000) Physical activity, Self-Esteem, and Self-Efficacy relationships in older adults: A randomized controlled trail. Analysis of Behavioural Medicine. 22, 131-139.

Soft Skill Facilitation

Personal Philiosophy of Soft Skill Facilitation

Ropes course without PPE from the 1961
Outward Bound Video

The Outward Bound Trust was founded in 1941 by Lawrence Holt and Kurt Hahn to provide young sailors with the skills and experience to survive at sea. After the Second World War it was evident that the success of Outward Bound was more than just survival skills, it taught young men to be independent, self aware and able to cope by themselves. So Kurt Hahn opened the first Outward Bound School (The Outward Bound Trust, 2012)

The Outward Bound 1955 video stresses the ‘character building’ element of Outward Bound and how with an experienced instructor the young men come to ‘no serious harm’. It appears that in the early days of Outward Bound the activities were more extreme and harsh. I think this was intended to toughen up the young men for a life at sea whereas today Adventure Training is used to develop soft skills such as:

· self-esteem

· self-confidence

· the exhilaration of overcoming or facing challenges

· a sense of achievement and wellbeing

· team building

· environmental awareness and advocacy (Brown, 1999).

Watching the videos you can see how risk management has changed and developed from the 1950’s and 1960’s to today. In the Outward Bound 1961 video the young men completed a high ropes course without any personal protective equipment (PPE) and appeared not to have rules in place; for example the number of people on each section of the course. This would not be acceptable in today’s Adventure Training.

<><> <><> <><> <><><><><><><><><><><><> <>

Ropes Couse with PPE at Bruntysilio
Outdoor Education Centre in 2011

Today participants are required to have PPE such as harnesses, ropes, helmets and rules in place to reduce accidents that may cause injury or loss and prevent and protect the adventure organisation from liability.

Risk management in adventure education has been influenced by accidents that have occurred in the industry -see link below in further reading. In adventure activities participants are exposed to real and perceived risk. Real risk is an objective assessment of risk that an individual is exposed to (this can include psychological risk) whereas perceived risk is an individual’s perception of the risk that they're exposed to this may be higher or lower than the actual risk.

The general public perceives that adventure activities are dangerous even with the appropriate safety procedures in place. This is normally because they have difficulty distinguishing between real and perceived risk (Priest and Gas, 2005). Research has shown that other traditional sports are significantly less safe than adventure activities (furlong, Jillings, LaRhette and Ryan, 1995; Cooley, 2000; Higgins, 1981). 

Adventure, risk and challenge are often used to develop participants personal and leadership qualities (Parkin and Blades, 1998). If the reduction of risk reaches the point where the challenge is gone then the benefits of participating in Adventure activities may not be achieved.

Since the 1960’s there has been significant development in safety and risk management in Adventure Education. This has been needed and has helped to improve safety and the participant’s experience. However adventure, risk and challenge are still required. I feel that some facilitators find getting the balance of risk management and challenge difficult as it requires experience and knowledge.

“a life without adventure is likely to be unsatisfying, but a life

in which adventure is allowed to take whatever form it will, is

likely to be short”     

(Bertrand Russell)

<><> <><> <>
<>

Further Reading Adventure Activity Licensing scheme Info Log (accidents and near misses. [Online]. [Cited 02/04/2012] Available from URL: http://www.outdoor-learning.org/Default.aspx?tabid=305 Brown, T.J. (1999). Adventure risk management. In J.C. Miles and S. Priest (Eds), Adventure Programming. Venture. Priest, S., and Gass, M.A. (2005) Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Human Kinetics Neill, J. (2006). Risk, Challenge and Safety in outdoor and adventure education and recreation. [Online]. [Cited 02/04/2012]. Available from URL: http://wilderdom.com/Risk.html

<><> <><> References

Brown, T.J. (1999). Adventure risk management. In J.C. Miles and S. Priest (Eds), Adventure Programming. Venture.

The Outward Bound Trust: About us (2012). [Online]. [Cited 02/04/10]. Available from URL: http://www.outwardbound.org.uk/about-us.html

Parkin, D., and Blades, G. (1998). Risk management and outdoor education: a practical approach to ensuring positive outcomes. Outdoor Educators Association of Queensland’s Journal Horizons. 66, p10-15

Priest, S., and Gass, M.A. (2005) Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Human Kinetics

Experiential Education

John Dewey (1938) stated that education needed to become less structured with classroom based delivery of information and have a greater focus on hands on involvement and experience. The learner’s previous personal experience will affect their experience of different situations, this means it is important that experiences are tailored to each learners needs.

Experiential learning (1) and experiential education (2) are terms that are often misunderstood and used interchangeably:

1) Experiential Learning (EL) takes place by learning through experiences of life’s events and reflecting upon them (generally achieved by the learner themselves). EL dates back before recorded history and remains prevalent now occurring in day to day life. Therefore is should not be seen as an ‘alternative approach’ to learning but the ‘most traditional and fundamental method’ of human learning (Neil, 2007).

2) Whereas Experiential Education (EE) is learning through experiences that are structured and facilitated by others, such as a teacher or outdoor facilitator (Neil, 2007). The current perception of EE is that it is ‘different’ this is due to mainstream education in schools, primarily using didactic teaching and frontloading learners with facts and knowledge.

The outdoors can provide novel experiences that allow an individual to learn and grow. Dewey and Kolb believed that an individual cannot optimise their learning from an experience without external guidance (Smith, 2001).

Kolb and Fry (1975) developed a model for how we learn through experience aided by external guidance, which has since been regularly referred to in literature and used by outdoor facilitators, some of whom have little understanding of it components. The model suggests four stages must occur for an individual to learn from their experience (Figure 1). The model should be thought of as a continuing spiral which can be started from any point (Kolb and Fry, 1975). Healey and Jenkins (2000) state the benefit of Kolb and Fry’s model is that each stage is associated with separate learning styles to suit each individuals learning preference. This allows a greater application of the model.

The model is regularly used but has received little supporting research (Smith, 2001). Friedlander, Kolb and Nielsen’s (2003) criticisms of the model have arisen due to Beth, Piaget and Dewey’s queries about the definition of learning and the four stages and following processes involved in each stage of the model. It has also been suggested that the process at each stage cannot be thought of as being separate from one another, meaning that facilitation techniques cannot directly target a stage as they are too closely interlinked. Thomas (1980) believes that there is no need for the intervention of others and that the experiences should be left to speak for themselves. Suggesting that for learning to occur all of the stages may not need to be completed and that reflection can be done implicitly.

The effectiveness and the applicability of the experimental education learning model can be difficult to conclude. There are benefits to intervening with some learners by encouraging them to discuss and reflect on their experiences to aid their learning and personal development; however learning benefits can still occur from taking a step back and allowing the learner to self-assess their experience. Facilitators should take care when applying the model to a particular programme, giving appropriate consideration to the participant’s previous experiences and the structure of the current experience, along with thought to timings of any reflection and observations. Providing facilitators are aware of the model’s flaws and apply it where appropriate, we may hopefully assist meaningful and long term learning and personal development for individuals. 

References

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York. Collier Books.

Friedlander, F., Kolb, D. and Nielsen, E. (2003) A definitive critique of Experiential Learning Theory. [Online]. [Cited 26/04/10]. Available from URL: http://www.cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb/critique/TheCritique_final2_wtp.pdf

Kolb, D. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. In Cooper, C. (1975) Theory of Group Processes. New York. John Wiley and sons.

Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2000) Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Its Application in Geography in Higher Education, Journal of Geography,99,185-195

Neil, J. (2007) What is Experiential Learning? [Online]. [Cited 02/04/12]. Available from URL: http://wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialLearningWhatIs.html

Smith, M. (2001) David A. Kolb On Experiential Learning. [Online]. [Cited 02/04/12]. Available from URL: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm

Thomas, J. (1980) Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves? Colorado Outward Bound School

Theories and Concepts - Self-esteem in an Adventure Setting

Self-esteem (SE) has received attention from numerous authors and researchers, however a universal definition cannot be agreed upon. Here are the developing definition of SE:

1) Jacobson (1964) defines SE as ‘...expressive of the harmony or discrepancy between the self representations and the wishful concept of the self’ (pg. 34).

2) ‘Self-esteem is our ability to value ourselves…..self-esteem is our the overall opinion we have about ourselves’ (Lothian Psychological Interventions Network, 2009)

3) However, Campbell (1990) adds to SE definition by stating how individuals may visualise themselves as closer to their ideal self in some situations more than others; presenting the idea of state SE (how a person feels about themselves at a particular moment in time) and an overall more stable level of trait SE (how a person generally feels about themselves).

State and Trait SE is shown in hierarchy, with global (trait) SE at the top with domains and sub-domains, such as physical, social and academic self-worth below (Fox, 1998). It has been suggested that successes or failures in one domain may not necessarily effect an individual’s global SE (McAuley, Blissmer, Katula, Duncan and Mihalko, 2000; Fox, 1998). If an individual experiences failures within a domain i.e. academic performance their global SE may not be affected if they do not believe academic performance to be important. However, the same individual who experiences’ failure in a sporting (physical) context, may experience an effect on their global SE, if they perceive sporting performance to be important (Marsh, 1986).

As authors and researchers are unclear on a universal definition it is clear that SE is more complex and multidimensional than previously believed. Therefore as facilitators we cannot just provide a positive experience and hope that the participant’s SE increases. Positive experiences are needed but the participant also needs suitable feedback to aid them place worth on an experience, that will hopefully help to increase their global SE. Clifford (1979) suggests that initial failures can increase motivation to succeed and may not necessarily reduce SE. Participants with high or low self-esteem need different forms of feedback;

1) High SEindividuals benefit from high levels of positive feedback

2) However Low SE individuals require feedback that is reinforcing of the positive aspects they believe themselves to have. If the feedback is overly positive, they will think that the comments are a miss-interpretation of their performance and not take the positive feedback on board. They need to experience lots of successful experiences in a variety of situations to increase their global SE.

Hattie, Marsh, Neil and Richards (1997) meta-analysis of SE research has identified adventure programmes as successful in increasing SE, which was most significant when programmes were specifically targeted at SE as opposed to a general personal development approach. Facilitators therefore need to decide upon what they would like to try and improve in their group and focus on that one element for it to be most successful. When aiming to improve SE facilitators should be aware of its multidimensional nature and how to best help individuals with varying level of SE.

It is important that facilitators have an understanding of how to plan and run adventure programmes that create an environment where the participants SE can reach optimal levels. Robert and Suren (2010) state that this can be done by helping the participant see success within themselves. Facilitators can aid this by setting realistic goals and challenges and creating appropriate opportunities for reflection and reviewing the successes and positives. However the positive effects of SE are short term and their SE returns back to their previous levels when the participant returns back to their everyday life (Gatzemann, Schweizer and Hummel, 2008). To ensure that SE is not just a short term benefit of adventure it is important for the facilitator to enable the participant to see how their increased SE and success can be transferred into everyday life. Russell (2005) states the importance of follow up sessions to ensure that SE does not have a decrease once the participant goes back to their everyday life. This is not always possible for the adventure facilitator and this role needs to be handed over to a councillor, school teacher or parent. Therefore it is important that schools work with the adventure facilitator to ensure that the benefits such as SE are not just short term.

References

Campbell, J.D. (1990) Self Esteem and clarity of the Self-concept. Journal of personality and social psychology. 59, p539-549.

Fox, K.R. (1998) Advances in the measurement of the physical self. In Duda, J.L. (Ed) Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Fitness information technology.

Gatzemann, T., Schweizer, K., and Hummel, A. (2008) effectiveness of sports activities with an orientation on experiential learning. Adventure based learning and outdoor education, 40, p146-152.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H., Neil, J., and Richards, G. (1997) Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research. 67, 43-87.

Jacobson, E. (1964) The Self and The Object World. Intl Universities Pr Inc.

Lothian Psychological Interventions Network (2009) A Self Help Guide to Self Esteem. Booklet

Marsh, H.W. (1986) Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, p129-149.

McAuley, E., Blissmer, B., Katula, J., Duncan, T.E. and Mihalko, S.L. (2000) Physical activity, Self-Esteem, and Self-Efficacy relationships in older adults: A randomized controlled trail. Analysis of Behavioural Medicine. 22, 131-139.

Robert, N.S., and Suren, A.T. (2010) through the eyes of youth: a qualitative evaluation of outdoor leadership programmes. Journal of park and recreation administration, 28, p59-80.

Russell, K.C. (2005). Two years later: a qualitative assessment of youth well being and the role of aftercare in outdoor behavioural health care.  Child and youth care forum, 34, p209-239.

Instrumentation

Facilitators believe that participating in adventure programmes combined with the individual’s experiences can enhance personal growth. Facilitators often see these developments through direct encounters with the individuals they are working with. Teachers and parents regularly comment on improvements or developments a child has made following participation in an adventure programme. When I worked at Bryntysilio Outdoor Education Centre I personally witnessed participants develop and flourish during their adventure programme experience. I personally believe in the value and benefit of such programmes.

The anecdotal evidence for the positive outcomes that adventure programmes achieve was once enough for individuals to believe and participate in such programmes. However there is an increasing need to gain professional credibility for the adventure industry by providing evidence of the outcomes, how they are reached and if they occur at all. Today’s society is becoming increasingly concerned with achievement and objective measures of performance. Therefore it is essential for research to be carried out so that parents, schools, local authorities and adventure programme critics can be satisfied that adventure programmes deliver results.

Research on the claimed benefits of participation in adventure programmes has been misleading. Further research is needed to clarify the findings however research cannot continue unless issues with the method are addressed. Many weaknesses in current research are associated with the methods used to measure the ‘soft skill’ outcomes (Neil – in preparation). Below are some research papers that agree and disagree on the benefits of adventure programmes:

1) Hattie, Marsh, Neil and Richards (1997) found significant evidence for the development of many ‘soft skills’ including; leadership, independence and emotional stability through adventure programmes.

2) Cason and Gillis (1994) found improved self-concept for adolescents participating in adventure programmes.

3) However Kaly and Heesacker (2003) did not find evidence for the benefit of adventure programmes.

To address the issue of methodology and the measurement tool used to determine the ‘soft skill’ outcomes Neil’s (in preparation) Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) aimed to develop previous tools such as the Coopersmith (1984) Self-Esteem Inventory and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965) by incorporating a large number of life effectiveness elements that are often targeted by adventure programmes, whilst maintaining a relatively easy administration process.

Neil’s (in preparation) LEQ is an improvement on previous measures however he has highlighted that there are issues with the length of the programme, group size and the instructor’s experience. Previous research has used pre and immediately post measures for an adventure programme (Hazelworth and Wilson, 1990). However personal growth and benefits of a programme may not be seen or experienced by an individual for a considerable length of time post programme. Some changes experienced may be subtle that measurement questionnaires and scales are too insensitive to record and detect changes. The participants’ personal growth may not even be noticed by the participant and therefore how can they be expected to report them.

Although there is a need to provide evidence for the benefit of adventure programmes it is clear that there are still methodological approach and measurement tool issues to be addressed. Until these issues are resolved there will be continued inconsistency in the research findings backing up the professional credibility of adventure programmes.

In the meantime we should not devalue the anecdotal evidence available and hope that schools, organisations and individuals signing up for adventure programmes accept this evidence and experience for themselves the positive outcomes of adventure programmes.



References

Cason, D. and Gillis, L. (1994) A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents.Journal of Experiential Education.17, 40-47.

Coopersmith (1984) cited in Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of WesternSydney.

Fitts (1965) cited in Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of WesternSydney.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H., Neil, J., and Richards, G. (1997) Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research.67, 43-87.

Hazelworth, M. and Wilson, B. (1990) The effects of an outdoor adventure camp experience on self-concept. Journal of Environmental Education.21, 33-37.

Kaly, P, W. &Heesacker, M. (2003) Effects of a ship-based adventure program on adolescent self-esteem and ego-identity development.Journal of Experiential Education.26, 97-104.

Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in preparation) The Life EffectivenessQuestionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.