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.