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.