Soft Skill in Adventure: December 2016

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.

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.

Soft Skill in Adventure

Thursday 1 December 2016

Transfer in Outdoor Learning