Transfer in Outdoor Learning

The goal of all education is to supply individuals with a basis of transferable information of which they can use to expand their own learning and adjust to living in a just society. Lessons are more valuable when applicable to beyond the specific scenario in which it was learnt (Lobato 2006). The ultimate goal of outdoor facilitation programs is not just to reflect the practical teachings of a program but to assist in the use and ability to transfer the soft skills that occur naturally from the activity into real life (Leberman & Martin 2004).

Gaas (1985) referred to the three types of transfer that can be made applicable to adventure facilitation. 

Specific – Learning of skill close to situation it was learnt in.

E.g. Learning a clove hitch in use of single pitch climbing to later use in sailing.

Nonspecific – Learning of more general principles and applying them to different situations.

E.g. “Trust” formed whilst belaying can be applied to types of risk taking and lending money.

Metaphoric – When transfer uses parallels between two learning environments.

E.g. The physical risk and fear associated with abseiling drawing parallels with the social stresses found in everyday life.

To allow for a structured breakdown of metaphoric transfer and its use in adventure education, we can examine the input, the practice and the output.

Input

Within adventure, metaphoric transfer occurs quite often due to the nature of activities and their relation to real life and has been cited in past research. Wolfe & Samdahl 2005 claimed that the belief in transference from challenge courses is so strong that in fact the impact of the activity lies in when the experience reflects into other life contexts (p.39).

Practice

The key to metaphoric transfer is determined within the experience and reflection. It is only when the key principles of an activity can relate closely to daily life that this type of transfer can truly take place (Gaas 1985). When clear links can be made between activity and life, they allow for a more significant association and more likely transfer. The danger for a facilitator is creating activities that can be made comparable to a similar level of challenge, risk, or emotion. The less the activity resembles daily challenge, the more prompting is required from the facilitator (Perkins & Salomon 1989) which in turn can create a forced learning opportunity which will not allow implicit transfer.

The value of the delivery mechanism used are displayed clearly in Sibthorp et al 2011 (Figure 1). The tools at the hands of the facilitator during and after an interventions held with the National Outdoor Leadership School. As might be assumed, the session created the largest degree of transfer along with attributes of the facilitator. I am slightly skeptical of the representation of these qualities of importance to transfer as it doesn’t take into account the importance of feedback and consolidation.

Figure 1: Instructor-Based Transfer Mechanisms

Output

The quality of reflection holds great value to the facilitator as it allows for the evidence of transfer and interpretation of the experience (Brown 2010). With the challenge of outdoor experiences creating personal perceptions, I feel the need of reviewing is critical in giving context to an individual’s experience, supplying other trails of thought to others and building skills of reviewing to be used in other learning scenarios.

Roberts (2002) argued for the value of reflection after adventure learning experiences. For ‘conscious reflective activity’ to occur, ‘the learner must relive the experience, making connections between information and feelings produced by the experience, and their own lived experience’ (Leberman & Martin 2004). I believe for that the experiences of which we base fundamental theories and concepts of our daily lives, we must either have them ingrained from early learning on an unconscious level, or we must need to reflect on the often complicated experiences that shape us as to take the appropriate lessons from them.

To conclude, adventure can hold often specific or generalized life lessons hidden within them. These values help us experience world outside of certainty and can assist in creating well rounded individuals. However, the experience holds essential and frequently complicated life teachings that must be reflected upon to be given meaning. The challenge of the outdoor facilitator is as always to maintain safety, whilst delivering elements of uncertainty, choice and the chance to create personal perceptions of the world.

References

Brown, M. (2010). Transfer: Outdoor Adventure Education's Achilles Heel? Changing Participation as a Viable Option. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(1), 13.

Gass, M. A. (1985). Programming the Transfer of Learning in Adventure Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 8(3), 18-24.

Leberman, S. I., & Martin, A. J. (2004). Enhancing Transfer of Learning through Post-Course Reflection. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 4(2), 173-184.

Leberman, S. I., & Martin, A. J. (2004). Enhancing Transfer of Learning through Post-Course Reflection. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 4(2), 173-184.

Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning: History, Issues, and Challenges for Future Research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431-449.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound?. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.

Roberts, B. (2002). Interaction, Reflection and Learning at a Distance. Open Learning, 17(1), 39-55.

Sibthorp, J., Furman, N., Paisley, K., Gookin, J., & Schumann, S. (2011). Mechanisms of Learning Transfer in Adventure Education: Qualitative Results from the NOLS Transfer Survey. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 109-126.

Wolfe, B. D., & Samdahl, D. M. (2005). Challenging Assumptions: Examining Fundamental Beliefs that Shape Challenge Course Programming and Research. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 25-43.

Further Reading

Dickson, T. J., & Gray, T. (2006). Facilitating Experiences: A Snap Shot of What is Happening Out There. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 41-52.

Priest, S., & Nasmith, M. (1993). A Model for Debriefing Experiences. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10(2), 16-18.

Self Concept & Esteem in Outdoor Facilitation

How we perceive the world around us and how we perceive ourselves in it holds significance in the effective facilitation of outdoor and adventure studies. The concept and esteem of oneself can vary greatly between individuals and can have a significant influence on our enjoyment, learning, and quality of life. The self is a central pillar of behavioral and social psychology (Baumeister 2012) as well as effective outdoor facilitation (Ewert 1983). 

To define the parts that make up self-perception, there are two common terms used:

• ·         Self-concept refers to the way we see ourselves (Baumeister 1999).
•             Self-esteem examines the way in which we feel about ourselves (Huitt 2004).

‘The affective or emotional aspect of self and generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves’.

Huitt (2004)

The importance of adventure in personal developmental programs and improving individual’s self-esteem has seen plenty of examination and study. One such study by Hazelworth & Wilson (1990) found that among participants, there was a significant rise in self-esteem/concept, higher results in performance and task activities, as well as social and personal growth. Research and experiences like this frequently hold an often to flawed similarity. It is unknown as to the specific nature of adventure programs and what must occur for these changes to happen. Ewert (1983) coined the idea of a ‘black-box’ in which an unknown exchange occurs between the individual’s and an adventure experience. Can adventure experiences really take the credit for social development in self-esteem?

When examining self-esteem, we must consider what the term comprises of. Everyone must have a slightly different basis to what we use to judge our value. The Structure of Self-Esteem model (figure 1) (Adapted from Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton 1976) paints a breakdown of each component in oneself. When looking at his model, I feel that the model does not represent a stationary state but instead is an organic, moving and ever-changing representation of how individuals give themselves value. 

Figure 1: The Structure of Self-Esteem Model. 

(Adapted from Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton 1976).

Taking the dynamic view of self-esteem and applying it to its current place in adventure facilitation, we must examine the way in which it is viewed and prioritized. Even with research, little is known of the theoretical components that can increase self-esteem (Moote & Wodarski 1997). Facilitators have the tools necessary to improve self-esteem but no one can underpin exactly what quantify the methods used. It is with this unknowing that I question the amount of trust we can give to the effective facilitation of adventure to promote self-esteem. Although some facilitators can create fun, learning and choice in the outdoors, for those who cannot create effective means that mean effective facilitation could take a back step. Individuals that encounter failure or feel neglectful of the goal of the adventure can see a decrease in self-esteem (Heatherton & Polivy 1991).

The direction of future programmes should examine the principles of therapeutic psychology as a means of identifying and tailoring experiences to meet specific goals. Ineffective means of testing and surveying individuals on what can be considered the ‘happy’ feeling experienced within outdoor programmes rather than a delving into of the mid to long term effects to an individual’s self-concept and esteem (Neill & Richards 1998).

I agree with the likes of Hazelworth & Wilson (1990) and others that state adventure can hold a positive relationship with the raising of self-esteem. Reflecting on my life and career in the outdoors, I too cannot attribute a single lesson, action or even series of events that has left me feeling more comfortable in my own skin. The black box of adventure still covers what it is exactly that alters us, and it is this very idea that can make facilitation a rather unpredictable place for facilitators. Individuals feel very differently about themselves and there cannot be a one fits all approach to raising this very personal aspect of the human psyche.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1999). The Self in Social Psychology. Psychology Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Self-Control - The Moral Muscle. Psychologist, 25(2), 112-115.

Ewert, A. W. (1983). Outdoor Adventure and Self-Concept: A Research Analysis. Institute of Recreation Research & Service, Department of Leisure Studies & Services.

Hazelworth, M. S., & Wilson, B. E. (1990). The Effects of an Outdoor Adventure Camp Experience on Self-Concept. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(4), 33-37.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 60(6), 895.

Huitt, W. (2004). Self-Concept and Self-Esteem. Educational Psychology Interactive.

Moote Jr, G. T., & Wodarski, J. S. (1997). The Acquistion of Life Skills through Adventure-Based Activities and Programs: A Review of the Literature. Adolescence, 32(125), 143.

Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1998). Does Outdoor Education Really Work? A Summary of Recent Meta-‐Analyses. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 3(1).

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-Concept: Validation of Construct Interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441.

Further Reading

Ekeland, E., Heian, F., Hagen, K. B., Abbott, J. M., & Nordheim, L. (2004). Exercise to Improve Self‐Esteem in Children and Young People. The Cochrane Library.

Halliday, N. (1999). Developing Self-Esteem through Challenge Education Experiences. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(6), 51-58.

Experiential Learning

How does learning occur? Is it the examples of theory given to us in a classroom that create formed and usable information or is it the situational and often natural moments where we produce solid foundations of knowledge that are applicable? 

Passive techniques of imparting knowledge have been a solid backbone of the classroom teaching structure with higher levels of education subject mostly to lecture based learning (Sax et al 2002). However, it has been found in studies of teaching styles, students can gain improved cognitive outcomes via active styles of teaching (Michel et al 2009).

Wudringer and Carlson (2010) defined experiential learning ‘as any learning that supports students in applying their knowledge and conceptual understanding to real-world problems or situations where the instructor directs and facilitates learning’. This type of learning isn’t a recent commodity but has seen roots as long ago as the times of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Outdoor learning and teaching has become synonymous with experiential learning in the form of residential experiences, as well as being vested into school curriculum's across the country. 

“For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.” 

Aristotle

In the attempt to expand on and to give a much needed structure to what is by its very nature, a very broad and diverse style of learning, the experiential learning model (Fry & Kolb 1979) (figure 1). Figure 1 demonstrates what is the most simplistic and most identifiable model of this active learning style. This shows experiential learning has a basis of immediate and personal observations on current experiences to form the foundation of knowledge. The model also implies the importance of reflection of the experience as well as the learned ideals and their application to new experiences.

Figure 1: Experiential Learning Model (Fry and Kolb 1979).

When observing this model, we must presume the significance of the experience is matching to that of the desired conclusions to be met by the learner. An experience that is lacking in transferable implication or is in fact negative could produce undesirable lessons learnt and solidified if in fact the experience or reflection are incorrect. The same experience can be interpreted in many different ways which can lead to both positive and negative connotations for the facilitator if their experience to general. This can lead to a wide variety of learning outcomes if the experience is not specific enough to allow for appropriate views to be reached by all learners.

“The only source of knowledge is experience”.

Albert Einstein

The use of experiential education should be a desirable tool in any facilitators arsenal. However, the problem of it use lies in two distinct camps. One is the creating of an experience that is both immersive and real to the learners whilst remaining specific enough to allow or targeted learning outcomes. The second is the facilitators ability to interpret and understand the individual’s perception of their experiences to help clarify and validate their opinions. Research done by Alison (2002) states that individuals perceived a greater emotional over physical risk in the use of adventure based programs. Learners may feel a larger responsibility on them and their ability to perceive what they are experiencing rather than being in a passive learning environment. 

Within experiential learning, the largest responsibility falls upon the learners to engage, interact and draw conclusions from what they are doing. The ability to enable the learner the freedom of their own experience can be one of the limiting factors within outdoor facilitation. The greater and more immersive the experience the learners find themselves in, the more significant and effective the lessons learned will be. The limiting factor of risk control and adventure can somewhat counteract each other with the perception of a real experience instead being manipulated and essentially staged to create something that may be perceived as an inevitable outcome and reaching as forced conclusion. This in turn may not create long-lasting lessons.

‘There are two goals in the experiential learning process. One is to learn the specifics of a particular subject, and the other is to learn about one’s own learning process’.

 Kolb 2008

My personal experiences of experiential learning have only become clear after reflection as a facilitator. The experiences I was given and lessons I learnt with what felt like student lead ventures that did in fact have facilitators creating possibilities for choice and student lead decisions that contributed to the real feel of the experience. I recall moments after small expeditions including walking and kayaking ventures ran by my teachers in which students were asked to sit down and discuss what we were doing and why we were doing. These recollections could occur during or after the session with small group talks to form a rationale for our sessions. Only in hindsight, we would conclude our feelings of the sessions and what we had learnt. Being younger, I thought nothing of this seemingly tedious exercise but it is when I look back that I see that it assisted in the forming and constructing of my own learning process. We experienced, reflected, discussed and used the conclusions we made to shape our early learning from our own conclusions. 

References

Allison, P. R. (2002). Values, Narrative and Authenticity: A Study of Youth Expeditions (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Strathclyde).

Fry, R., & Kolb, D. (1979). Experiential Learning Theory and Learning Experiences in Liberal Arts Education. New Directions for Experiential Learning, 6, 79.

Houle, C. E. (1980) Continuing Learning in the Professions, San Francisco: Josey Baines.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging Students in Inclusive Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2008). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning. Education and Development Department of Organizational Behavior. Case. Western Reserve University Working Paper.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT Press.

Michel, N., Cater, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus Passive Teaching Styles: An Empirical Study of Student Learning Outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397-418.

Sax, L. J., Keup, J. R., Stolzenberg, E. B., Gilmartin, S. K., & Harper, C. (2002). Findings from the 2002 Administration of your First College Year (YFCY): National Aggregates. Higher Education Research Institute.

Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. (2009). Teaching for Experiential Learning: Five Approaches that Work. R&L Education.

Further Reading

Houle, C. E. (1980) Continuing Learning in the Professions, San Francisco: Josey Baines.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging Students in Inclusive Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.

The Comfort Zone Model: A Critique and Analysis of it Use in Outdoor Learning

For years’ facilitators have been using the Comfort Zone model (CZ) to generalize the way in which we understand learning and how we apply it to the outdoors. This blog post aims to analyze the CZ model in reference to Mike Browns’ Comfort Zone: Model or Myth (2008).

Figure 1 – The Comfort Zone Model (Panicucci, Prouty & Collinson 2007)

Figure 1 displays the distinct areas of the CZ model. The comfort zone represents an area with no disequilibrium where learning adequate learning cannot be achieved, the stretch zone requires moderate levels of arousal and stress allowing for cognitive dissonance and learning, and the panic zone where in arousal and anxiety reach a point that doesn’t allow for sufficient focus on the task and no chance for the participant to enter into a suitable learning environment (Panicucci et al 2007).The CZ model states that the point at which the best learning outcomes and significant experiences are made when used in experiential learning are found when individuals are outside of their comfort zone and not in reach of their panic zone (Exeter 2001; Miles & Priest 1990). Learning can occur in moderate levels of stress when attention to the task can still be met whilst still dealing with a manageable amount of induced stress (Palethorpe & Wilson 2011).

The paper takes a critical stance on the use of the CZ model when applied to real adventure based teaching. One of the major themes CZ model relies on is Cognitive Dissonance. This is an ‘uncomfortable internal state occurring when new information conflicts with commonly held beliefs’ (Festinger 1957). This created unbalance is used as the means in which to teach the desired learning outcomes and is suggested to be inside the growth/learning zone of the CZ model. Brown raises a valid point of instructors purposely inducing stress in activities. Instructors often hold little or no knowledge of the psychological stressors and management involved in designing the intensity of the desired learning environment. this could place groups as well as the facilitators in danger of bad practice and negative teaching outcomes.

The main obstacle in the CZ model is the difficulty to define each zone and apply them accurately to individuals. By associating the model with cognitive dissonance, it must be noted that whilst individual’s beliefs and cognition's change, so must their perceived level of comfort, stretch and panic zones. With this unstable perception of the CZ model, is it possible to create effective learning experiences for all of the participants in a group? If a group of attend a team building day featuring a high ropes course, it cannot be assured that all parties will gain the same significant learning outcomes or will some vary outside their stretch zone into comfort or panic. The negative connotations associated with the under and over arousal of participants in regards to outdoor learning is too great to be generalized by such a model.

To examine my own experience as an adventure enthusiast and student of outdoor education, I must say that the most significant experiences I have participated in have not been created in the warmth and safety of a classroom or behind safety glass. They instead have been created from moments that have seemed unsure with the possibility of choice, risk and consequence which although will have varied greatly in severity throughout my life, have helped create a basis of understanding when dealing with my relationship to danger and reality.

In summary, although the CZ model provides a generalized and understandable model, it is hard to be made applicable with the use of different groups and the specific learning demands of the individuals that they comprise of. As well as this, to take the model in a literal sense holds potentially dangerous situations for facilitators attempting to engage learners in positions of heightened stress and discomfort without the knowledge to control and adjust their experience.

As Brown states, ‘It is time to reposition the comfort zone model as metaphor; a metaphor to describe how we might think about learning and growth rather than a rationale for implementing dubious teaching and learning practices’ (p 10).

Main Paper: Brown, M. (2008). Comfort Zone: Model or Metaphor?. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 12(1), 3.

References

Exeter, D. J. (2001). Outward Bound: Learning in the Outdoors. Outward Bound Trust.

Festinger, L. (1957). Cognitive Dissonance Theory. 1989) Primary Prevention of HIV/AIDS: Psychological Approaches. Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications.

Miles, J. C., & Priest, S. (1990). Adventure Education. Venture Publishing, Inc., 1999 Cato Ave., State College, PA 16801.

Palethorpe, R., & Wilson, J. P. (2011). Learning in the Panic Zone: Strategies for Managing Learner Anxiety. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(5), 420-438.

Panicucci, J., Prouty, D., & Collinson, R. (2007). Cornerstones of Adventure Education. Adventure Education: Theory and Applications, 33-48.

Prouty, D., Panicucci, J., & Collinson, R. (2007). Adventure Education: Theory and Applications. Human Kinetics. 

Further Reading

Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997) Processing the Experience: Strategies to Enhance and Generalize Learning. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 4050 Westmark Drive, Dubuque, IA 52002.

Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the Effects of Cognitive Conflict and Direct Teaching for Students of Different Academic Levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 829-855.