Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698058127849.pdf (Liberia)
OUTDOOR EDUCATION, ADVENTURE AND LEARNING - A FUSION DESMOND RUBENS MSc (Education) Degree University of Edinburgh 1997 i ABSTRACT There are few studies exploring the views of those involved in the field of Outdoor Education.

This study attempts to begin to remedy this deficit.

The study analyses data produced from twelve in-depth interviews with individuals who are either practitioners or who are in positions of influence within the field of Outdoor Education.
The study demonstrates that, as well as potential for students!

personal and social development potential within Outdoor Education, there is also potential for learning.

The outdoor environment and the self-concept are identified as specific dimensions influencing students!

learning.

Other dimensions explored are transfer and teaching styles.

In the area of adventure, respondents!

narrow and broad conceptions of adventure are developed, with implications for the practice of Outdoor Education.
Links are made between Adventure Education and recent findings in the field of Educational Psychology.

These links suggest firstly that empirical justifications can be found to justify adventurous teaching approaches; secondly that the use of dimensions of adventure can encourage a mastery orientation by students towards learning; and thirdly the identification of a role for the self-concept focusing on student effort.
Links are made between progressive teaching and learning approaches of Outdoor Education and of mainstream education.

The current position of Outdoor Education within the English National Curriculum is seen to be limited in conception.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my tutor, Charles Anderson, for his insightful suggestions and his forbearance in the face of ever diminishing deadlines.
Jane, Andrew and Catriona were remarkably tolerant in the sacrificing of family time over a period of eighteen months.

They were equally forbearing in departing the family home for a number of week-ends in order to allow tranquillity to reign.

Finally, I would like to thank Stuart Haddon, headteacher at Craigroyson Community High School, for time and encouragement.
iii CONTENTS ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 INTRODUCTION 3 THE ORIGINS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION 4 CURRENT DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MEANING 6 OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ADVENTURE EDUCATION 8 APPROACHES TO LEARNING 9 PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 11 TRANSFER 13 TEACHING STYLES 14 METHODOLOGY 17 INTRODUCATION 17 JUSTIFICATION OF THE USE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED 19 INTERVIEWS OPERATIONALISING THE RESEARCH QUESTION 19 DATA COLLECTION 21 THE SAMPLE 21 THE DATA 26 CONCLUDING COMMENT 27 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 28 INTRODUCTION 28 PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 29 ADVENTURE 32 THE ENVIRONMENT 41 LEARNING 42 iv CONTENTS (CONTINUED) TRANSFER AND CHANGE 46 TEACHING STYLES 50 INHERENT VALUE OR ADDED VALUE?
56 CONCEPTIONS, PRACTICE AND POLICY 60 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 66 INTRODUCTION 66 PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 66 THE ENVIRONMENT 67 LEARNING 68 CHANGES OF ATTITUDES THROUGH SHARING 68 EXPERIENCES TEACHING STYLES 69 THE INHERENT VALUE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION 69 IMPLICATIONS OF RESPONDENTS!
CONCEPTIONS OF 69 ADVENTURE CONCLUDING COMMENTS 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY 78 APPENDIX 1 BIOGRAPHIES OF RESPONDENTS 83 APPENDIX 2 SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEWS 88 1 INTRODUCTION Generally, Outdoor Education can be viewed as any form of educational activity which takes place outwith the classroom.

As will be perceived in the literature review, there is debate within the field of Outdoor Education over its exact meaning and nature.

The relationship between Outdoor Education and mainstream education has varied over time.
However, it is probably fair to state that most policymakers, conventional thinkers, and educationalists themselves have always viewed Outdoor Education as a fairly marginal part of the education system.

It is to be hoped that this study will demonstrate that meanings of a more profound nature than is generally realised may be drawn from a study of Outdoor Education.

Moreover, a consideration of these meanings may have beneficial consequences for mainstream education.
One method of attempting to achieve development of theory, or to understand meaning, is to attempt to describe the present situation in the field (Dey, 1993).

Thus, for the purposes of this study, a descriptive approach has been adopted in exploring present thinking within the field.
The research question to be investigated is: to explore the present !philosophy" that underlies the actions of both those involved in positions of influence and those involved as reflective practitioners within the field of Outdoor Education.

At present, there are two main reasons for encouraging the development of better theoretical justifications for the practice of Outdoor Education.

Firstly, there is the position of Outdoor Education within the curriculum.
Outdoor Education has been a part of the mainstream UK educational context since 1950 (Hunt, 1989).

Although provision grew massively during the 1960s and 1970s, in recent years, and in particular within the last few years, the provision of Outdoor Education has suffered large reductions.
When the value of Outdoor Education was unquestioned by many within mainstream education, and its provision was expanding, there was little motivation to develop substantive educational justifications for its position within the curriculum.

This position has changed and it is now perceived by many practitioners that theories should be developed which justify the position of Outdoor Education within the curriculum.
Secondly, Solas (1992) states that it is important that implicit theories are made explicit if professional growth for teachers is to take place.

This 2 points to the necessity of exploring theories held by those working within Outdoor Education in order to assist in the articulation of these theories.

Two other arguments exist for undertaking this particular piece of research.
Firstly, the last major attempt (to my knowledge) to survey thinking and practice within the field of Outdoor Education was in 1989 (Hunt).

Since then, there have been major curriculum developments both in England and in Scotland.

This study examines respondents" thinking within the context of these changes.

Finally, I have a strong personal interest in this research, having been involved in the field of Outdoor Education for sixteen years.
Particular interests focus on linking Outdoor Education with mainstream theories on students" approaches to learning; in developing a greater understanding of the meanings outdoor educationalists attach to !personal and social development"; and in considering the role of Adventure Education as a method of contributing towards students" general motivation, learning and development.

The study has the following structure.


The Literature Review focuses on general theories relevant to Outdoor Education, but examines areas which are also relevant to education in general, such as learning and teaching styles, transfer, and personal and social development.

The Methodology Chapter develops the details of operationalising the research question and explains the development of the themes which materialised from the data.
Analysis and Discussion examines major themes on (1) personal and social development; (2) adventure; (3) the environment; (4) learning; (5) transfer and change; (6) teaching styles; (7) inherent value or added value?

; and (8) conceptions, practice and policy.

Some of these themes, such as adventure, are developed conceptually at length and are of general educational interest.

Others, such as the place of Outdoor Education within the curriculum, are of more specific interest.
The Conclusions and Implications chapter further develops the substance of respondents" conceptions of adventure, drawing on insights from the Educational Psychology literature.

Finally, important conclusions are drawn relating to other important themes such as learning and personal and social development.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION The review of literature has been drawn mainly from British and American sources, although there are some references to Australian studies.
This was because only a limited number of papers from sources from outwith the UK and North America, such as from Europe and Australasia, were generated through the data bases.

The literature was largely generated from data bases on education (BIDS), physical education (SPORTSDISCUS) and psychology (PSYCHLIT).

Key words included adventure, Australia, education, learning, metaphor, motivation, outdoor, outward and philosophy, in varying combinations.
It should be noted at this juncture that discussion of Outdoor Education within the North American literature usually takes place within the field of Experiential Education, which, as will be discussed later in this chapter, encompasses a broader field.

The meaning of Adventure Education is also further discussed.
This survey of the literature of Outdoor Education indicates that developments in the field in the UK and North America have centred around attempts to ground Outdoor Education, Adventure Education and Experiential Education onto a more secure theoretical basis.

These developments have drawn on three primary areas of knowledge: empirical studies, the philosophy of education and psychology.
The UK has a wealth of practical experience of Outdoor Education programmes, which have given rise to a large number of locally based models of practice (Hunt, 1989).

However, Barrett and Greenaway (1995) point to a lack of high standard research by which these models could be evaluated.

They summarise UK based research as being uncritical, not of a high standard, hampered by methodological problems, isolated and inconclusive.
In particular, little research focuses on the experiences of young people themselves.

In support of the above criticisms, it was found to be the case that several recently published papers, located during the present literature search, had formulated assertions based on both outdated theory and outdated research instruments.

However, one straightforward reason why research may not be of a generally high standard is that there would seem to be few researchers.
This fact was apparent while generating a list of possible interviewees for the purposes of this study, when it became clear that the number of researchers working within the field of Outdoor Education was limited.

4 The North American literature is much concerned with developing theory and therefore much has been developed regarding theory construction (Carver, 1996; Chapman, 1995; Chapman, McPhee and Proudman, 1995; McPhee, 1995).
Developments have largely taken place within the field of Experiential Education, a movement founded on the philosophical traditions of John Dewey.

More recent literature has drawn on developments in psychology, such as constructivism.

However, there have been other recent publications which have drawn heavily on dated material.
For example, in one justification of experiential theory, Sakofs (1995) has uncritically cited Piagetian theory, ignoring long standing problems with stage theory (Boden, 1979; Meadows, 1992).

Furthermore, recent insights from Educational Psychology on matters such as student motivation were not detected in the Outdoor Education literature, despite the fact that such insights are highly relevant to this field.
Lack of research input from mainstream education from both the UK and North America may reflect the marginalised nature of the Outdoor Education field.

The review will sketch the origins of Outdoor Education.

Then, because of conceptual problems regarding the nature of Outdoor Education, the meaning of this term is explored.

This exploration covers current theoretical thinking within the field.
Theoretical considerations are also to the fore in the examination of several further major topics of importance within Outdoor Education which also relate Outdoor Education with mainstream thinking.

These topics are: adventure; learning theories; personal and social development; and transfer.

Finally, teaching styles are examined.


THE ORIGINS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION The United Kingdom The founding of Natural History societies in some public schools in the mid-nineteenth century was the first documented manifestation of an interest in the outdoors by schools.

The springing up of these bodies arose within a society where there had existed a tradition of exploration both for trade and for the advancement of scientific knowledge (Hunt, 1989).
However, the mass of the school population were not affected by these innovations.

In 1926, the Hadow Report, while not identifying the outdoors as a learning context, was concerned with teaching approaches, recommending that “teaching should be concerned with activity and experience, as well as the transmission of facts and skills” (in Hunt, 1989, p. 25).

Nearly twenty years later, the 1944 Education Act specifically acknowledged the value of outdoor activities.
The Act proposed that “a 5 period of residence in a school camp or other boarding school in the country would contribute substantially to the health and width of outlook of any child from a town school, especially if the care of livestock, the growing of crops, the study of the countryside and the pursuit of outdoor activities formed the bulk of the educational provision and were handled by specially qualified staff” (in Hunt, p.28).
From outwith the formal educational sector, Kurt Hahn pioneered the establishment of the first Outward Bound school in Wales in 1941.

One of the main educational aims of the school was the character training of young people through exposure to demanding and challenging courses in the outdoors.

The proposals contained within the 1944 Act, combined with the influence of the philosophy of Outward Bound, brought about the opening of the first LEA outdoor centre in Derbyshire in 1950.
In 1963, the Newsom Report, focusing on the less academically able half of the school population, endorsed the value of outdoor activities.

This endorsement helped in maintaining the momentum of the enormous expansion of rurally based Outdoor Education centres throughout the UK in the 1960s and 1970s.

During this period, Edinburgh pioneered an urban based outdoor centre, bringing Outdoor Education within easy reach of all city students.
Concurrent with this expansion in provision within formal education was a plethora of other developments, such as the creation of organisations devoted to promoting expeditions within the UK and overseas for the purposes of exploration and for fieldwork (Hunt, 1989).

North America Knapp (1994) noted that frequent field trips were part of the syllabus of progressive schools in the early 1900s.
In the 1930s, progressive educators such as Dewey supported the use of school camps to gain contact with the natural world.

However, the Progressive Education Association died out in 1955 (Wichmann, 1995).

There is little evidence of growth of the type of provision, at least within the formal sector of education, which characterised growth in the UK at this time, although there were programmes which were carried on at a local level in some public and private schools (Knapp, 1994).
The modern era was ushered in when the Experiential Education Movement, based on the revered philosophical traditions of the Progressive Movement, was founded in 1973.
6 CURRENT DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MEANING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION Outdoor Education in the UK The National Association of Outdoor Education (NAOE) defines the meaning of Outdoor Education thus: Outdoor Education is a means of approaching educational objectives through guided direct experience in the outdoor environment, using its resources as learning materials.
This experience combines both a study of environmental aspects and topics and participation in those activities associated with the natural environment (Hunt, 1989, p. 53).

Consistent with the NAOE definition, models of practice emphasis approach or learning style, rather than the content, although the context is, self-evidently, the outdoors.

Hunt (1989) describes a number of models for Outdoor Education emanating from different local authorities throughout the UK.
Despite the existence of NAOE definition, there is, nevertheless, a lack of consensus regarding the meaning of Outdoor Education within the UK.

This is articulated by Higgins and Loynes, who point to the “ongoing and seemingly unresolved debate within the U.K. on the nature of Outdoor Education” (1996, p. 2).
However, this remark notwithstanding, Higgins and Loynes do point to accord in a recent coming together [in 1996] of European practitioners under the auspices of the recently created !European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education".
Common themes recently developed by these thinkers in respect to Outdoor Education comprise firstly, the stimulation of personal and social development; secondly, the understanding that while the themes of adventure, the outdoors and education are important, the process is not simply recreational; there is a !journeying out" or covering of new ground; thirdly, the use of direct, rather than mediated experience as a learning approach; fourthly, respect for the environment, developed through the concept of !frilutsiv", a Scandinavian term signifying !feeling at home in nature"; and fifthly, students taking increased responsibility for their own learning, consequently developing increased responsibility in directing their own lives.
The above may represent a step forward in attempts to resolve the debate regarding the nature of Outdoor Education.

However, as Higgins and Loynes (1996) themselves welcome the diversity of views on the nature of Outdoor Education, moves towards consensus may well continue to be limited.
7 Outdoor Education in North America The Association of Experiential Education defines Experiential Education as: a process through which a learner constructs knowledge, skill, and value from direct experience (p.7, Luckmann, 1996).

In contrast to the position in the UK, the Association of Experiential Education have formally approved thirteen broad principles defining its theoretical and practical foundations (Luckmann, 1996).
Although there is no contextual imperative located within the principles of Experiential Education, in practice “natural landscapes” are regarded as typical foci for Experiential Learning (Luckmann, 1996, p. 6).

Wichmann, striking a discouraging note, draws parallels between the Experiential Movement and the defunct Progressive Education Movement, founded on the Dewey"s philosophy.
Their common origins are described thus: both movements accepting Dewey as mentor; both being highly holistic and multidisciplinary; both seeking learning through experience; both operating largely outside traditional institutions; and neither one well researched (1995, p. 109).

A further major difficulty articulated by Dewey, and acknowledged by experiential educators such as McPhee (1995), are the problems of constructing and justifying theory within the field of progressive education.
This is particularly true when these theories are compared with the taken-for-granted value of the purveying of a traditional body of knowledge: it is, accordingly, a much more difficult task to work out the kinds of materials, of methods, and of social relationships that are appropriate to the new education than is the case with traditional education (Dewey, 1938, p. 29).

In a recent collection of articles, three writers (Chapman; McPhee; Proudman, 1995) explore the nature of Experiential Education.
The implications of Dewey"s statement are acknowledged by all three.

McPhee (1995), in particular, focuses on the importance of developing understanding of the nature of Experiential Education by the posing of the question “What is Experiential Education?”.

Because McPhee"s regards it as impossible to compose a succinct definition of Experiential Education, she cautions against identifying a simple answer, thus reiterating Dewey"s thinking.
8 Chapman (1995) explores the question by discussing examples and styles of learning.

He promotes a style of learning where students are actively engaged in the learning process, rather than being given direct answers.

Chapman cautions against perceiving activity itself as necessarily meaning that learning has taken place.

For example, absorbing irrelevant information during an outdoor zoo visit can be as dulling as completing uninspiring classroom worksheets.
Similarly, high challenge adventure programmes, whilst being fun and motivating, may be simply diversionary and therefore educationally pointless.

The active component of the experience must involve an engaged mind [my italics].

For Proudman (1995), crucially, Experiential Education engages the learner emotionally.

Students do not separate themselves from the learning experience.
He states that “good experiential learning combines direct experience that is meaningful to the student with guided reflection and analysis.

It is challenging, active, student-centred processes that impel students toward opportunities for taking initiative, responsibility and decision-making” (p. 241).
Furthermore, the adoption of colloquialisms such as !learning by doing" and !hands-on learning" firstly stigmatises the experiential style of learning and secondly, legitimises a lack of understanding by practitioners of the learning processes involved.

The importance of Adventure within the Outdoor Education field is now explored.

ADVENTURE EDUCATION Some practitioners regard Outdoor Education and Adventure Education as equivalent, although for most the term !adventure" has special meaning.
Like Outdoor Education itself, the theory and practice of Adventure Education is not defined easily.

Wurdinger identifies three main themes underpinning Adventure Education.

These are: using experience to enhance the educational process, building moral character, and developing a willingness to take risks (1995, p. 1).

For Miles and Priest: adventure education involves the purposeful planning and implementation of educational processes that involve risk in some way (1990, Introduction).
9 Hopkins and Putman define adventure as “an experience that involves uncertainty of outcome” and education as “a process of intellectual, moral and social growth that involves the acquisition of knowledge, skills and experience.” (1993, p. 6).

Thus, a definition of Adventure Education is a complex amalgam of these definitions.
Hopkins and Putman point to the fairly lengthy 1975 Dartington Conference definition of Outdoor Education (in Hopkins and Putman, 1993) as a useful foundation in developing an understanding of Adventure Education.

However, they also acknowledge respect for other practitioners" definitions of Adventure Education.

Whilst much has been written regarding the meaning of Adventure Education, the goals, although broad, are deceptively simple.
For Miles and Priest, they are: to expand the self, to learn and grow and progress toward the realisation of human potential (1990, Introduction), while for Wurdinger (1995) and Hopkins and Putman (1993), the goal is, simply, personal growth.

These authors cited above have broad, encompassing views of adventure.
All extend their field of thinking about adventure beyond the arena of the outdoors, citing, for example, the adventurous nature of overcoming mental challenges, such as speaking out in front of others.

Thus, although embracing personal growth as an overt goal, there is an underlying agenda relating to a broad approach to education in general.

For example, Hopkins and Putman believe that “all education should be adventurous” (1993, p. 6).
Wurdinger (1995) relates that the use of adventure as an educational tool can be traced back to Plato, who held to the view that wisdom and courage can be learned through risktaking activities.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING Experiential learning in some form is central to Outdoor Education.

However, experiential learning is not generally clearly understood by practitioners, possibly paralleling a lack of understanding about the processes of learning in education in general.
Current experiential learning theories are based on some form of Kolb"s (1984) process of experiential learning, which itself is both a synthesis and development of the theories or philosophies of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget.

Kolb"s definition of learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (1984, p. 41).
Crucial to this definition of learning is that “the simple perception of experience is not sufficient for 10 learning; something must be done with it” (1984, p. 43).

Similarly, transformation is not sufficient in itself; there must be an experience to be acted on.

Kolb described the processes of his theory as a cycle: concrete experience ---> reflective observation ---> abstract conceptualisation ---> active experimentation --- > concrete experience (1984, p. 42).
This process is often summarised by the colloquialism: !plan, do, review".

Boot and Reynolds (1983) consider learning from a first, second and third person perspective, each perspective yielding its own reality.

Within a first person perspective, experiential learning is viewed as “an active process of construction and reconstruction by an individual” (p. 4).

From the second person perspective “reality emerges from dialogue with another” (p. 4), with the individual still involved in its creation.
From the third person perspective, knowledge “is seen to exist independently of the individual” (p. 4).

From the first and second perspective, learning [their italics] becomes the main focus of education, with “knowledge being created and negotiated ... , not transmitted” (p. 4).

Experiential learning is thus viewed as a reaction to the dominance of the third person perspective in education, in which teaching is viewed as the prime activity.
McLeod has pointed to some difficulties of experiential learning theories, arguing that proponents of such theories tend to treat the concepts of experience and reflection unproblematically.

For example, elaborating on the elusive nature of experience, she notes: sometimes experience is understood to be intensely personal, yet at the same time we talk about sharing an experience with others.
It would appear that the temporal nature of experience, its meaningfulness and its personal yet contextual nature, all contribute to its complexity and elusiveness (1996, p. 39).

More recently, experiential educators have drawn on constructivist learning theories.

Blumenfeld, citing Marshall, states that “constructivist approaches stress that understanding is a function of knowledge construction and transformation, not merely information and acquisition” (1992, p. 277).
While this definition has strong resonances with Kolb"s definition, the focus is on the active construction of knowledge by the learner.

DeLay describes an example of the process of constructing knowledge: to talk about “nature”, for example, individuals need an experience of nature.

Their knowledge will differ if that experience is through the 11 television, the grass springing through the sidewalk cracks, or a pristine wilderness (1996, p. 78).
Fouhey and Saltmarsh, referring to an Outward Bound experiment where experiences are shared, note that “the individual is actively engaged in a collaborative process of constructing knowledge” (1996, p. 82, my italics).
In contrast, DeLay cites Miles" approach to helping students understand the meaning of the experience of nature: the outdoor educator must place the wilderness experience in context for students, prepare them for their encounter with nature and then transfer the lessons learned in that encounter back to the students" home environment (1996, p. 78).
DeLay notes that there is an implicit assumption here that the educator is the individual who is actively constructing meaning for the students, and therefore all of the students involved in the experience will absorb the meaning of nature in a similar way.

Thus, a variety of learning approaches is identified within the context of Experiential Learning.
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT The promotion of personal and social development within the context of Outdoor Education may have had its origins in the philosophy of Kurt Hahn (James, 1995) who advocated the use of challenging activities in order to foster appropriate moral character among young people.

A few respondents in this study acknowledged being influenced by the philosophy of Outward Bound, one of several institutions which were founded by Hahn (James, 1995).
Although the notion of developing moral character as a tenet of fostering personal growth appears in Wurdinger"s (1995) definition of adventure, it has generally been superseded by widespread belief in the importance of promoting personal and social development.

The Hunt study (1989), on a return of 342 (36% of total) questionnaires from throughout the UK, showed that the predominant educational aim of both providers and users of Outdoor Adventure activities was personal and social development.
Support for the approach of Outdoor Education as a means of imparting personal and social development has also materialised from curricular documents, where it has been described as providing an “invaluable means of delivering all the outcomes” (Scottish 12 Office Education Department, 1993, p. 24, my italics) of this “fundamental” (p. 1) area of the curriculum.

Focusing on specific dimensions of personal and social development, the self-concept is examined first.
The self-concept An increase in the self-concept due to an Outdoor Education experience is often regarded as the most important dimension of personal and social development.

Because of the importance attached by many within education to the self-concept, it is dealt with at some length.

Research Evidence and Methodological Problems Hopkins and Putman (1993), citing research evidence, state this increase in the self-concept to be the main outcome of Outward Bound.
Many studies point to an increase in the self-concept (Cason and Gillis 1994; Finkenberg, Shows and DiNucci, 1994; Keighley, 1997; Marsh, Richards and Barnes, 1986) brought about through the provision of Outward Bound and other programmes.

However, studies focusing on young people at risk acknowledge that improvements to the self-concept may be shortlived if, after the Outdoor Education experience, participants are returned to an unchanged environment (Barrett and Greenaway, 1995).
More seriously, there are two major problems associated with measurement of the self-concept.

Firstly, there are problems associated with the instruments used to measure self-esteem.

Demo notes that “very little attention has been devoted to the measurement problems plaguing the study of self-esteem” (1985, p.1490).

Even the instrument generally regarded as the best available, Harter"s instrument for Assessing Self-Esteem, has been subject to some criticism (Bogan, 1988).
Secondly, there are problems associated with the theoretical basis of self-esteem.

Harter (Fox and Corbin, 1989) has promoted a theory of self-esteem which strongly emphasises the multidimensionality of the self-concept.

According to this theory, children judge themselves according to the domain of their lives addressed.

This further undermines the validity of the older instruments, such as those developed by Coopersmith (1967).
Recent papers in the literature of Outdoor Education (Cason and Gillis, 1994; Keighley, 1997) have drawn conclusions regarding positive effects of outdoor programmes on the self-concept based on studies dating back to the 1970s which, on consideration of the above difficulties, should now be treated with caution.
13 Other Self-Development Concepts While an increase in the self-concept is given priority as a developmental aim by educators, practitioners within the Outdoor Education field have also focused elsewhere.

Royce (1987a; 1987b; 1987c) has developed an argument that an objective of the first importance for outdoor educators is the development by students of !self-awareness".

The development of self-awareness thus forms a foundation for the process of self-development.
Many other self development dimensions have been identified as crucial to the thinking of Outdoor Education.

For example, accepting responsibility, developing self-discipline and accepting leadership of others were identified by the Dartington Conference (in Hopkins and Putman, 1993).
Social Development Regarding social development, Hunt identified two conditions that must be met if “exciting activities out-of-doors ... are to be transformed into a learning experience of really fundamental value” (1989, p. 161).

The first condition is that participants should live together closely as a group; the second condition is that young people should be able to exercise choice and solve problems with minimum interference from adults.
Such conditions will give rise to the potential for powerful social development (as well as personal development) opportunities.

Empirical evidence that Outdoor Education promotes social development is limited (Barrett and Greenaway, 1995), although improved social relationships, at least in the short term, have been reported from three studies cited by Barrett and Greenaway.

TRANSFER Classroom teaching is normally focused on subject learning.
Pedagogical practice does not usually extend to encouraging the transfer of learning from the subject being learned to elsewhere.

Within the context of Outdoor Education, however, because of the importance attached to its developmental aspect, the perceived necessity of encouraging students to transfer the benefits of their experiences outwith the immediate context has lead to the development of models of transfer.

Some of these models are concerned with learning as well as personal development.
14 Transfer is represented as “the process of integrating elements of one learning environment into another” (Gass and Priest, 1993, p. 18).

Gass (1985) has argued for making this process conscious and has been responsible for the promotion of models of transfer of learning.

Gass" (1985) model of transfer draws on the learning theories of Bruner regarding specific and non-specific transfer.
Briefly, specific transfer of learning occurs when students learn a task or a skill in one context and can then perform a very similar task in a different context.

Non-specific transfer occurs when general ideas are learned and then applied in different contexts.

Gass (1985), citing Bacon, has also promoted metaphoric transfer of learning, where the principles being transferred are not the same, but are analogous, or metaphorical.
In support of use of metaphor and also the necessity of using review as a tool in order to achieve transfer, Priest and Naismith argue that “metaphoric transfer opportunities” (1993, p. 16) may be the most beneficial consequences of the reviewing process.

For example, if students sailing a dinghy display a certain lack of cooperation, or !jerkiness" in working together, the dinghy will not sail efficiently.
A metaphoric transfer of learning would require the same students to consider the problems of small groups cooperating together in, say, a working situation.

TEACHING STYLES In comparison with North America, there is relatively little in the UK literature which focuses on teaching styles, although there is a literature on skills teaching.
However, it is reasonable to draw inferences regarding teaching styles from recently enunciated statements regarding the nature of Outdoor Education (Higgins and Loynes, 1996).

The implications are that Outdoor Educators would teach for experiential learning, which here has the meaning of unmediated learning.

Two consequences follow from this experiential approach: firstly, students are encouraged to take increasing responsibility for their own learning; and secondly, personal development is facilitated.
Within the field of Experiential Education Chapman (1995) defines teacher roles as follows: firstly, providing minimum necessary structure for students to be successful; secondly, helping students make connections through experiences, followed by the debriefing of experiences or the deconstructing of metaphors; and thirdly, being purposeful.
Chapman (1995) focuses on cooperation as a strategy which can be powerfully experienced; and that promoting cooperation is valuable because of contrasting with mainstream schooling"s focus on competition.

He further states that “teachers are cast as coaches, and are largely removed from their roles as interpreters of reality, purveyors of truth, mediators between 15 students and the world” (1995, p. 18).
Similarly, Boot and Reynolds, citing Rogers, use the terms “catalyst” or “facilitators” to characterise the teacher"s role, in contrast to being “the guardian of wisdom” (1983, p. 4).

Humberstone (1986), in an ethnographic study, focuses on the relationships between students and staff.

She examined teaching approaches by teaching staff sharing a residential experience with school students at an outdoor centre.
She found the approach was one which “fostered an inter-personal, informal relationship between teachers and pupils” (p. 458).

Humberstone draws the inference that this approach was an important dimension in providing a worthwhile experience for the students.

Carver (1996) defines four pedagogical principles of experiential education.

The first principle, authenticity, can be related to Proudman"s (1995) emotionally based learning.
The second principle is active learning, which can be related to Chapman"s (1995) engagement of mind.

The third principle, drawing on student experiences, is self-evidently at the heart of experiential learning.

The fourth principle is providing mechanisms of connecting experience for future opportunity.

The final principle is related to the major contribution of Dewey (1938), who argued that experience alone is not sufficient to be of educational value, but must also be reflected upon.
Similarly, Proudman (1995) argues for a series of working principles.

These include a mixture of content and process, an absence of teacher judgment, a reexamination of values, meaningful relationships and challenging students to operate outside their !comfort zones".

More negatively, Wichmann (1995) points to a number of syndromes that are commonly adopted by teachers when they fail to adopt a deep approach towards Experiential Education.
One example is the “cookbook” (1995, p.113) syndrome, where activities are deemed to work if firstly, students do them without losing interest; secondly, they fill a time slot; and thirdly, they have a reputation for working.

By posing these syndromes, Wichmann (1995) argues for the necessity of developing criteria for distinguishing practice where the aims of the educational experience have been poorly thought out, from practice where the aims have been subject to careful deliberation.
One major extension to the theoretical scope of Experiential Education has been located in the literature.

This is a role for value in shaping the goals of experiential learning.

Carver (1996) proposes that although principles are necessary, they are not sufficient if a theory of experiential learning is to be comprehensive.

She therefore assigns a high role to values such as compassion and caring for others in shaping goals.
If a role for value is not found within Experiential Education, it is possible to conceive of the development of programmes which could promote 16 negative values such as racism.

It is of note that a concern for value is also integral to some modern conceptions of Adventure Education.

For example, Wurdinger"s (1995) has incorporated moral character into his definition of Adventure Education.
This review of literature suggests that concern with the development of theory is currently to the fore within the field of Outdoor Education.

It will be seen that, while there is much in the Analysis and Discussion chapter which reflects the focus of the literature review, areas such as adventure expanded enormously in scope.

This expansion reflected the wealth of data gathered regarding such areas.

Other topics, such as approaches to learning, threw up insights not covered in the literature review.
Thus, although the literature review sets the scene for the Analysis and Discussion chapter, it also acts as a launching pad for new directions and developments, generated by the richness of the data gathered.

17 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION The focus of the research is to explore the present thinking or !philosophy" underlying the actions of those involved in positions of influence in the field of Outdoor Education.
The same exploration was to be directed at some present reflective practitioners working with school students or others in the community.

Although the research question focused on Outdoor Education, there was also an underlying and broader agenda of the relevance of Outdoor Education to general education.

In other words, can the theory and practice of Outdoor Education have applications for mainstream education?

The last major attempt to examine practice (to my knowledge) was the Hunt Study (1989).
A postal questionnaire methodology was used, involving the return of 342 questionnaires, 36% of the total.

The research was designed to elucidate current activity, problems and practice concerning opportunities for outdoor adventure.

A mass of information regarding practice and aims of Outdoor Education was collected.
In considering my own research methodology, it was decided that a small-scale qualitative study focusing on an in-depth exploration of respondents" thinking would, to some extent, complement the quantitative methodology of the Hunt Study.

Although the field of the Hunt Study was Outdoor Adventure, in contrast with Outdoor Education, there is, nevertheless, much common ground.

Many of the respondents of the Hunt Study were involved in education.
My own study was much more limited in the numbers of respondents contacted, but it was hoped that the depth of the study would encourage these respondents to explore in very fine detail some of the issues concerning the nature of Outdoor Education.

An intended outcome of the study would be the drawing out of common themes thrown up by the research data.

However, specific instances of insightful thinking and practice would also be documented.
Data was collected from respondents using the method of semi-structured interviews (Day, 1993; Drever, 1995).

Two categories of respondents, reflecting the substance of the research question, were identified.

The first category comprised six practitioners; the second category comprised six individuals in positions of influence.
Thus, the categories would yield data firstly from individuals who were influential within the field of Outdoor Education and secondly from individuals who had daily contact with students undergoing experiences of Outdoor Education.

It was also felt that a total of twelve respondents would give a sufficient cross-section of 18 responses; additionally, the existence of the two categories would yield enriched data from two different types of respondents.
The Interview Before beginning the interview, it was made clear that the purpose of this study was to gather information on respondent"s views and practices and that no judgments were intended by the interviewer.

During the course of the interview and particularly when prompting was required, respondents were reminded that agreement was not being sought on topics.

To cite one example, considerable effort was made to avoid assigning value to different teaching styles.
In order to encourage frank responses, all respondents were offered anonymity.

However, no respondents accepted this offer.

Questions were read to respondents from a schedule (see Appendix 2), ensuring consistency for all twelve interviews.

Additionally if necessary, respondents, firstly, were prompted in order to encourage full expression of their thinking and secondly, probed in order to encourage the exploration of important topics in detail.
After completion of the main part of the interview, respondents were invited to add any further contributions which they felt had not been adequately explored in the main interview and in particular to comment on any matters.

Two points regarding the schedule should be noted.

Firstly, after the first interview had been completed, the interview schedule was discussed in detail with the respondent.
The main purpose of this exercise was to check that the meaning understood by the respondent was the intended meaning of the interviewer.

As there were no problems with this, the schedule remained unchanged.

Secondly, after having transcribed a few tapes, some minor shortcomings (in my own view) of my interviewing style came to light.

The style was improved in subsequent interviews.

In the remainder of this chapter, the method is first justified.
A description of how the research question is operationalised follows.

There is a brief section on data collection followed by a long section on the selection of the sample.

Finally, discussion of the data itself leads into the chapter on analysis and discussion.

19 JUSTIFICATION OF THE USE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS A key component of the research question is “to explore present philosophy” within the field of Outdoor Education.
To gain knowledge and insight into another individual"s thinking requires a level of discussion which cannot be extracted from quantitative methods such as a questionnaire.

It seemed, therefore, that some form of interview was the only method of collecting data.

From the literature, and interest in areas of education such as student learning, it was clear that there were particular topics about Outdoor Education which it was appropriate to encourage respondents to explore.
A semi-structured interview was therefore employed.

This gave a clear framework for the questions which I wished respondents to consider, but also allowed them sufficient latitude to range over the breadth of the particular area under question.

That this was an appropriate method was supported by the quality of the data collected.

Several important themes arose which were not anticipated, providing insights, for example, into dimensions which were instrumental in stimulating student learning.
OPERATIONALISING THE RESEARCH QUESTION It was necessary to generate a set of topics which would encourage respondents to explore fully questions relevant to Outdoor Education.

Before questions were generated, it was crucial to bear in mind that an educational relevance was deemed essential to all questions.

This was necessary to ensure that respondents were clear that practice which is educational was being distinguished from that which is not.
For example, the pursuit of sailing may be mainly educational; alternatively, sailing can be purely recreational and therefore of limited educational value.

It follows that questions required respondents always to explain or justify their practice in educational terms.

Questions were then generated in two ways.

Firstly, there were questions which are of current importance in the debate about the nature of Outdoor Education.
For example, the standing of personal and social development is a major area of discussion within the field.

Secondly, Outdoor Education has relevance to areas within mainstream education to which it could reasonably be expected to contribute.

For example, respondents were asked to consider whether their practice of Outdoor Education affected the way in which students considered their own learning.
Finally, it is important to note that some topics, such as !adventure", which can be both a method of learning and a direct outdoor experience, can stimulate discussion within both of these sets of questions.

20 Two further points are made.

Firstly, the literature has attempted to ground the practice of Outdoor Education (or Experiential Education) more firmly within a theoretical basis.
The questions are intended to stimulate the respondents regarding their theories, or their understanding of theories, of Outdoor Education.

Secondly, questions were generated to stimulate respondents to consider the place of Outdoor Education within the curriculum.

Themes Generated The themes generated below reflect some of the concerns described above.
Questions relevant to Outdoor Education were generated to cover the following topics: the extent to which respondents perceived how thinking in the field had changed over time.

the extent to which respondents" own thinking had changed over time.

the extent to which respondents were influenced by educational theories.

the extent to which respondents perceived Outdoor Education as an experience of value for its own sake.

how respondents understood notions of adventure.


how respondents understood notions of personal and social development.

respondents" teaching approaches to Outdoor Education.

how respondents understood the transfer of Outdoor Education experiences to other areas of students" learning.

how respondents related Outdoor Education to the formal curriculum.

how respondents related Outdoor Education and the environment.
The question relating to the topic of the environment was added after five respondents had been interviewed.

The environment having been raised as an issue by some of these respondents, it was clear that this was considered by respondents to be a vital area.

This topic was thus incorporated into the schedule.

21 DATA COLLECTION A good quality tape recorder was borrowed from the Edinburgh University Education Department.

Respondents were interviewed either at their workplace or at their homes.
Locations visited were Alloa (Clackmannan), Newbattle (Midlothian), Prestonpans (East Lothian), Fort William, the Lake District and Birmingham.

Five respondents were interviewed in Edinburgh.

All the respondents took the interview seriously.

Sufficient time was allowed for a full exploration of the questions.
During the course of the interviews, the following general impressions of respondents was gained: forthrightness in communicating views; this forthrightness notwithstanding, a cautious tone usually adopted with regard to statements made; generalisations qualified; unsubstantiated sources of information acknowledged.

A few problems did arise during the course of interviews.

Occasionally, questions were misunderstood.


For example, when asked about perceptions of the world of Outdoor Education, respondents sometimes drifted onto personal views, or conflated local and national issues.

Attempts were always made to return respondents to the topic in question, although sometimes this was not successful.

When respondents displayed confusion, perhaps due to inability to answer a question, efforts were always made to be reassuring.
The great majority of interviews were transcribed in their entirety.

The majority of interviews lasted about an hour, although they varied from about half an hour to over one hour and a half.

Only on a few of the longest interviews, in which some material was clearly not relevant, was some material not transcribed.
THE SAMPLE Crucially, all respondents had a requirement to be centrally involved in the field of education, rather than simply operating within the recreational area of outdoor pursuits or activities.

Two categories of respondent were then decided.

The first category comprised those in “positions of influence”.

The second category comprised those who were “reflective practitioners”.

Those in “positions of influence” were deemed “experts” for the purposes of this study.
While the term has associations of authority within a field of knowledge, it also has implications that the field of respondents" expertise is more mature than perhaps is the case within Outdoor Education.

Most of those within this category would acknowledge the limitations of the field and would not necessarily themselves be happy with the term “expert”.
22 However, it is the case that they have had extensive experience both in the practice of Outdoor Education and also in the articulation of this practice.

“Practitioners”1 describes those individuals involved in the day to day practice of Outdoor Education.

They had all at some point in their careers undertaken a qualification at a teaching college and were currently practising within an educational context.
They held a high degree of autonomy over developing and managing their Outdoor Education programmes.

Thus, they are to be distinguished from instructors who may have limited control over their programmes.

Additionally, all of them had particular areas of expertise, either in practical skills or in other areas of education.
The categories of respondents were thus: (i) Respondents in positions of influence within the Outdoor Education world (ii) Reflective practitioners either in schools or within the community.

Strategies for selecting respondents to be included in each category are now examined: Respondents in positions of influence, termed “experts”.

Respondents were selected for interview using the following strategies.

Firstly, a list of possible experts was generated.


Secondly, a selection of these experts was made from the generated list.

Criteria for generating a list of possible experts Respondents were required to be in a position of influence.

These positions were of two types.

The first type included those who had contributed to discussion regarding the nature of Outdoor Education.

Examples of the first type are known writers or authors.
The second type included those who are influential by the nature of the position that they hold within the field of Outdoor Education.

Examples of the second type are those who hold advisory positions in local authorities; or are heads of outdoor centres; or are involved in Higher Education; or are involved with curriculum development at a national level.
It is difficult to make comparisons among experts as to the extent of their influence, but 1” Practitioners” were described as “reflective practitioners” in the research question.

23 probably heads of centres are more influential at a local level, whereas writers and authors are more influential at a national level.

Most of the experts fulfilled more than one of the roles noted above.

It was decided to generate candidates for the list from anywhere within the UK, rather than simply Scotland.
The number of influential individuals within the field of Outdoor Education is limited.

As much of the thinking and practice of Outdoor Education was pioneered in England, a purely Scottish based study would be open to criticisms of narrowness of base.

A total list of twenty-three possible names was compiled both by personal knowledge and in consultation with colleagues.
In particular Peter Higgins, senior lecturer in Outdoor Education at Moray House College of Education, suggested a high proportion of the names.

Criteria for selecting possible experts from the generated list It was decided to select from a variety of positions in order to avoid duplication of roles.

In three cases, the respondent held a unique role within the UK.
There is only one editor of the Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership; one senior lecturer in Outdoor Education; and one principal of a large LEA city based outdoor centre serving schools.

In the other cases, I selected one principal of an outdoor centre; one representative of a research foundation devoted to outdoor adventure (which may have been a unique position); and one adviser in local government.
Only among the principals of outdoor centres, and to a much lesser extent among advisors, was the selection to be made from a relatively large number of possible respondents.

Two further points must be made regarding the selection of experts.

Firstly, I am aware that there are no women among the experts.

Very few women"s names were generated and although there was at least one suitable individual, she was geographically remotely situated.
My resources were finite in terms of time and finance and this decided me in favour of a equally suitable male expert.

However, it may be a pointer to the fact that there would appear to be an underepresentation of women in positions of influence within the field of Outdoor Education.

Secondly, many of the experts have been involved in the field for many years.

Only one had been involved for much less that twenty years.
Lack of young experts may reflect either career structure or the length of time required to build up expertise.

24 The following additional points of information regarding the sample of experts should be made.

They were all practitioners at some point in their careers.

Regarding present employment, three are presently within local government; one is in Higher Education; and two work independently.
Regarding location, three are in England, (one of whom had worked for several years in Scotland); two are in Scotland and one is partly in England and partly in Scotland.

Representativeness of selected experts The number of experts in Outdoor Education within the UK is small.

As indicated, some of the above are in unique roles and it was fortunate to be able to interview these individuals.
As already indicated, there were a large number of possible choices of respondents within the category of principals of outdoor centres.

The choice in question did happen to be known to me.

It is unlikely that his personal views are representative of others in this position.

However, the same comment could have been made about any other choice of principal which might have been made.
Nevertheless, the problems of his position are shared, and therefore views contingent upon these shared problems would have meaning which would be generally applicable.

Respondents in schools or elsewhere, termed “practitioners” Criteria for generating a list of possible practitioners Constraints of time and finance determined a localised selection of respondents.
Because Lothian had been a pioneer of Outdoor Education provision and development for nearly three decades (Hopkins and Putman, 1993), there were, until recently, about twenty teachers of Outdoor Education employed throughout what was known until 1996 as Lothian Region.

They were employed either within schools or within the (recently closed) urban based outdoor centre.

These teachers were all considered as possible respondents.

Respondents from outwith the formal educational sphere were also considered.
Some names were available from the list generated with experts in mind.

In addition, there were a few local Outdoor Education projects known to myself which were community based.

Criteria for selecting possible practitioners from the generated list 25 Because of my interest in school based provision of Outdoor Education, the majority of respondents selected are teachers.

Four are employed by local government.


Of these four, three are teachers of Outdoor Education within mainstream schools and one operates from a small locally based outdoor centre.
From outwith the formal education sector, it was considered important to interview firstly some one working within an urban community who would have contact with adult students and secondly, some one from the charitable sector, as both historically and in more recent times, this sector has stimulated thinking about the philosophy of Outdoor Education.

One respondent was selected from each of these two categories.
All practitioners were based in Scotland, although one had worked in England for several years.

There was a final criterion for selection of these respondents.

Respondents were known for being reflective and articulate contributors to discussion about the nature of Outdoor Education.

Representativeness of selected practitioners.

Practitioners can be divided into two categories.

Firstly, there are four LEA based practitioners.


It is not easy to say how representative the sample of practitioners is for elsewhere in the UK, as knowledge of the extent and nature of Outdoor Education provision throughout the country is limited.

However, extrapolating from knowledge of Scottish local authority circumstances, and the budgetary constraints affecting LEAs throughout the UK, it seems likely that provision is both small and diminishing.
The sample of practitioners is representative to the extent that the problems faced by respondents in this study would be similar to those faced by teachers or educators in local authorities or the community elsewhere.

Secondly, there are two practitioners based in the community sector or the charitable sector.

Remarks similar to those made about the principals of outdoor centres (see p. 24) can be applied to the representativeness of these respondents.
26 THE DATA Summarising Data The transcripts of the data were sorted into the fifteen separate questions which comprised the interview schedule.

The transcripts for each question were then summarised.

In developing the summary, the transcripts required to be condensed in such a way as to reduce substantially the amount of data, while simultaneously maintaining accuracy and completeness of meaning.

The fifty-seven pages of the summary were then examined in order to generate themes.
For the purpose of examining the summary in order to generate these themes, the original categories generated in operationalising the research question were temporarily abandoned.

The data itself then became the source of categories (or themes) generated.

Thus, data relevant to a particular theme could originate from any of the responses to the questions.
While these themes were often consistent with the original categories, unforeseen themes also became apparent and themes of particular interest were noted.

Labelling themes Firstly, certain themes were clear and relatively unambiguous.

For example, !teaching styles" posed few problems, being mainly a description of practice.

Other themes, such as !learning" and !transfer" posed particularly difficult problems.
An illustration of the degree of these problems can be indicated by exploring the nature of these two particular themes.

The importance of !transfer" as a theme originated firstly out of an interest in respondents" views on the ability of students to transfer knowledge from the learning context of Outdoor Education to elsewhere, and secondly, out of the knowledge that !transfer" is central to the philosophy of a number of Outdoor Education organisations.
The importance of !learning" originated both because of its essential nature within education and also because of the amount of data that materialised.

However, there is an argument for placing both !learning" and !transfer" in one category.

If a broad meaning were to be attached to the conception of !transfer", much of the conception of !learning" could be encompassed within this meaning.
Nevertheless, both because of the importance that is attached to the consideration of !transfer" as a separate concept, and also because of the facilitation of the drawing of meaning from the data, its separateness has been retained.

The inference requires to be drawn.

Distinguishing themes is an artificial endeavour and the reader is asked to bear this in mind.

27 Secondly, some themes were clearly closely related.
For example, there is much common ground between !adventure" and !personal and social development".

In ordering the discussion of themes in the next chapter, closely related categories have been placed near each other in order to facilitate analysis and discussion.

Efforts were also made to sequence themes.


For example, it seemed logical to place !teaching styles" after !learning", as it is reasonable to assume that respondents" teaching styles would be affected by their knowledge of students" learning styles.

CONCLUDING COMMENT Finally, interviewing respondents through the use of semi-structured interviews was found to be a curiously intimate procedure, a reaction which had not been anticipated.
Each interview was unique in providing specific insights to a respondent"s thinking.

Respondents were frequently obliged to apply considerable efforts in forming thoughtful answers to questions.

It was therefore a privilege to be privy to respondents" deep thinking in a way that would not have been possible through the means of a general conversation, however enjoyable that might have been.
Thus, the interviews generated a wealth of rich and substantial data from respondents who were based from as far north as Fort William and as far south as Birmingham.

Themes were generated, both anticipated and unexpected.

It is to the analysis and discussion of these themes that I now turn.

28 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION Eight main themes are presented.

These themes emerged from a close examination of the data presented by respondents.
To a large extent, theme headings, such as adventure or personal and social development, reflect the original focus of the research question.

Other themes, such as those focusing on learning and change, were not a major part of the original focus, but were derived from the wealth of data provided by the interviews.
Both because of this wealth of data and because of the importance of these particular themes being strongly relevant to mainstream education, it was considered that such themes as learning and change required recognition in their own right.

Moreover, it would seem to be the case that, within the literature, the importance of some of the areas, such as the intrinsic value of the outdoor environment as a factor in learning, has not been adequately made.
The method of analysis and discussion within each theme varies, depending on the nature of the theme to be examined.

Some themes, such as those under teaching styles and learning have much of descriptive interest and it has been judged that respondents" own words have sufficient intrinsic power to persuade the reader of the importance of the topics developed therein.

Discussion of these themes is therefore relatively limited.
Other themes, by their nature, have generated a substantial amount of discussion.

For example, data generated from adventure and personal and social development have lead to considerations of a conceptual nature regarding these themes.

The themes to be addressed are: Personal and Social Development.

Adventure.

The Environment.

Learning.

Transfer and Change.

Teaching Styles.

Inherent Value or Added Value?

Conceptions, Practice and Policy.


Within each theme, attempts were made to separate findings from discussion and where this division is possible, it has been made apparent by the use of a sub-heading.

However, where separation of findings and discussion has proved problematic, they have been presented in close proximity.

29 Before setting out on the detailed analysis and discussion, two general points concerning the respondents are presented.
Firstly, respondents were not greatly influenced by recent literature and theory of Outdoor Education.

Only two experts and one practitioner acknowledged being both widely read and also influenced by current authors.

The great majority stated that they were much more likely to be influenced by the thinking and practice of their peers, echoing Fullan"s promotion of “the primacy of personal contact” (p. 132, 1991, his italics) as a major source of new ideas.
Secondly, in comparison with their views at the beginnings of their careers in Outdoor Education, many respondents now hold to a view that students" personal and social development is a major aim of Outdoor Education.

It is therefore the theme of personal and social development that is first addressed.

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Before this area is examined, nomenclature requires to be discussed.

The use of the term !personal and social development" is common in education.
Because of its widespread currency, the expression is sometimes employed in a rather glib way.

During the interview, a few respondents expressed reservations about the use of the term.

However, the limitations were discussed and accepted by both myself and the respondents concerned and it was agreed to continue to use the term, bearing these limitations in mind.
The single major theme regarding this area of respondents" thinking was that all respondents, without exception, regarded a role for some form of personal and social development of students within Outdoor Education as important.

In fact, the majority of respondents went further, employing expressions such as !vital", !crucial" and !key focus".

There was even an air of bemusement from two respondents at the very question of the importance of this topic being raised.
However, having declared the importance of personal and social development, respondents approached the discussion of personal and social development in two ways.

Firstly, some respondents were specific about the importance of concentrating their thinking on a limited number of dimensions of personal and social development.

For example, Claire Patullo of the Craigmillar Adventure Project was clear that she attached major importance to developing confidence among students.
Secondly, a few respondents framed discussion in general terms.

For example, Peter Higgins focused on the relation between personal and social development outcomes and 30 the practical activities of Outdoor Education.

He suggested that the construction of an inventory of these outcomes against activities could have useful applications for practice.
In contrast to the first set of respondents, the respondents who expressed their discussion in general terms did not differentiate among the values of the dimensions of personal and social development.

One unsolicited dimension, which arose from responses to several of the questions in the interview, was the concept of relationships.
Three practitioners and three experts raised this dimension under personal and social development and elsewhere, usually when discussing residential experiences or expeditions.

The concept of relationships arose, for example, in the necessity of providing opportunities for individuals to explore the tension between their own needs and the needs of others.
Thus, this exploration of relationships was seen here as a form of personal development, rather than the promotion of the use of cooperation or teamwork as an efficient method of completing tasks.

Finally, the concept of responsibility was raised by a number of respondents under the area of personal and social development.
Because of its importance to the concept of !adventure", responsibility has been discussed within the section on !adventure" Discussion Several dimensions came up within the context of personal and social development.

Self-confidence, self-esteem, or the valuing of self, was mentioned by at least seven respondents.

Cooperation, or teamwork, was mentioned by a similar number.
There is little value in tabulating these dimensions as most or all of the respondents would rank highly any of these dimensions, as they are well established within most individuals" conception of personal and social development.

In general, most respondents did not dissect individual dimensions although some gave reasons for particularly valuing certain dimensions.

These reasons usually centred on the needs of students with whom they worked.
From reasons given, such as a perception that students were not confident, it would seem that the value of a particular dimension for respondents depended, at least partially, on the types of students with whom they most frequently worked.

Thus, respondents who perceived their students as being not empowered would rank empowerment as an important dimension and those whose students were not confident ranked confidence as important.
Considering Outdoor Educators generally, although it might seem self-evident that, say, teachers of Outdoor Education ought to start by 31 considering the needs of their students, there is not necessarily a formal requirement for them to do so.

Other pressures, such as curricular aims, may come to bear when assessing students" needs.
Furthermore, teachers may benefit, firstly from training in order to develop observation skills to assist in assessing students" needs, and secondly, may require to develop some sensitivity towards their students.

It may also be worth undertaking training in developing skills in observing group needs.
Peter Higgins" proposed inventory of personal and social development dimensions examined against outdoor activity outcomes could also play a useful role in the development of outdoor educator"s approaches to personal and social development.

Self-awareness was raised by two respondents, albeit in different ways.

Chris Loynes focused on self-awareness as a major contribution in helping students construct their identity.
Alistair Seagroat was also implicitly of this view, both in helping students to open their eyes to the environment around them and also in encouraging students to examine their own attitudes: I don"t think you change their attitude, that"s wrong, I think it"s the wrong question.

I think what you should get is for them to look at their attitudes and how they can become more positive for them ... become more at ease with themselves almost.
Royce"s (1987a; 1987b; 1987c) papers regarding self-awareness, cited in the literature review, will be recalled.

Evidence from Respondents for the Effectiveness of Personal and Social Development Respondents were cautious in making claims for the effectiveness of personal and social developmental programmes.

Views varied from Peter Higgins" !none whatsoever" 2, to references to studies suggesting that people may change, although possibly not very much, nor in the long term.
Two experts and one practitioner mentioned the idea of Outdoor Education being a catalyst for !unlocking talents" or creating a !potential for change" or !energising" people.

By this they meant that Outdoor Education has the potential to change people, but that it may not necessarily do so.

Clearly, there is an implication that the experience is not sufficient in itself, but requires outside agency to assist in the implemention of change.
2 Peter Higgins acknowledged that this remark was !slightly exaggerated".

32 Apart from this, a wealth of powerful anecdotal evidence was offered, to the extent that some of the respondents, including two experts, whilst acknowledging lack of rigour in the evidence, were personally convinced that there had been many people who had been powerfully affected by their experiences of Outdoor Education.
Finally, Peter Higgins pointed to the need for good research: It"s a really difficult thing to get to and I think, not just in our field, I think in probably any educational field, it"s something for a real effort, we need tools, we need methods ...
ADVENTURE In asking respondents about adventure, I have attempted firstly, to gauge the importance of the role of adventure for them within Outdoor Education, secondly to ask respondents to describe their conception of adventure and thirdly, to identify their practice of adventure.

The Importance of the Concept of Adventure in Respondents" Thinking.

No respondent excluded adventure from Outdoor Education.
Three practitioners and four experts placed adventure either at the heart of their thinking on Outdoor Education or at least as an important or exceptionally important dimension of their thinking.

Phrases used by the latter include !vital", !a necessary element", or !I think Outdoor Education is enhanced when there is an adventure at some point".

For the other respondents, adventure was no more important than a number of other dimensions which comprised their conceptual framework of Outdoor Education.
Respondents" Conceptions of Adventure.

None of the respondents equated Outdoor Education and adventure.

Some articulated the notion that it was possible to have adventure within other areas of both education and life, the classroom and the exploration of relationships being cited as examples.
However, having acknowledged this, some felt firstly, that adventure had a special meaning within the context of Outdoor Education and secondly, that Outdoor Education was a particularly powerful method of imparting adventure.

Respondents also pointed out the need to protect students from physical or psychological damage.
33 The majority of the experts had a clear conception of adventure which, given that at least two had a direct interest in communicating the idea of adventure through publications, was predictable.

One expert declined to single out adventure as a concept, but incorporated the idea of adventure within his thinking.

The experts were not always in agreement with each other.

Some identified dimensions which were in contradiction to those identified by others.
More frequently, their conceptions of adventure, while usually having some dimensions in common, also embraced dimensions which were unique to them.

In contrast, practitioners did not identify dimensions unique to them.

Dimensions of Adventure Identified by Respondents The following were identified as dimensions of adventure by several respondents: Uncertainty of outcome was identified by three practitioners and three experts.
Newness of place or activity, or the concept of some kind of exploration was identified by four practitioners and three experts.

Challenge was identified by three practitioners and one expert.

Perceived risk (by the students) was identified by four practitioners and two experts.

However, one expert was of the view that risk was a dimension that was counterproductive to the idea of adventure.

Responsibility was identified by four practitioners and one expert.
As I viewed responsibility as a particularly important dimension, this dimension was prompted, (although particular care was taken not to lead respondents).

The importance of responsibility within education is underlined by Greenaway who states that “most definitions of development involve people taking responsibility for their own actions and their own learning” (1997, p. 19).

Three experts also identified the expression of commitment by students as essential to their participation in adventure.
As commitment requires students to take responsibility for participating in an adventure, there is a close correspondence of meaning between the concept of commitment and the concept of responsibility, where this involves a decision of participation by the student.

For the purposes of this study, the two concepts have been linked.

Thus, a total of four practitioners and four experts identified either responsibility or commitment as important components of adventure.
In contrast to this 34 view, there were two respondents who did not see devolving responsibility to students as an essential part of adventure.

The importance of responsibility to respondents was characterised in two main ways.

Firstly, some respondents were clear that the student took some or all of the responsibility as to whether to participate at all in the adventurous experience.

Ethically, where a student is perceived to be at risk of physical or psychological damage, this may be a requirement.
(However, one expert noted that, in the past, students had less choice than now as to whether to participate in an adventurous experience.)

Secondly, responsibility can be devolved to students once they have begun to undertake the adventure.

Chris Loynes characterised this ethos as !getting students to be proactive", rather than !follow" an instructor.
Turning to conceptions of adventure identified by only one or a few respondents, there were respondents who believed that Outdoor Education, by its nature, should be associated with certain specific dimensions of adventure.

Peter Higgins, for example, embraced three dimensions which were additional to the dimension of uncertainty identified above.
They were, firstly, some kind of engagement with the landscape; secondly, (in common with Rory Stewart), some degree of physicality or effort on the part of the student; and thirdly, some form of journeying out from a comfortable base.

Chris Loynes held to the most radical conception.


He described adventure thus: I think there are two words that are at the heart of the experience for me are !creativity" and !connection" and then, stepping away from that, being creative, in connecting, there is adventure, and so adventure for me is anything that one does that begins to engage you with the world, that you are making something happen, that you are finding meaning in things, or value in things.
The first creative act, for me, is the meaning that you give to an experience.

If you"re not being told what the meaning is, if you"re allowed to give your own meaning to the experience, that is a creative act, and if you"re allowed to try and turn that into some form of language or some form by which you can communicate it to others, that"s another adventure in sharing your own meaning with others.

As already mentioned, an outcome of this view is that risk taking is counterproductive to this process.
It was clear that there was not a consensus regarding the concept of adventure among respondents.

However, several dimensions were common to many of the correspondents.

35 Discussion Dimensions of Adventure Examining the dimensions of adventure identified above, it is possible to link some of the dimensions.

Newness of place or activity, and exploration can be equated with the extending of students" experiences, the !extending our being" (Hopkins and Putman, 1993, p. 6) of one definition of adventure.
Challenge and perceived risk can also be linked in a complementary fashion.

Challenge requires the student to overcome some risk that s/he perceives is inherent in the experience.

Uncertainty of outcome is involved in all of the above.

Uncertainty of outcome is perhaps the most conventionally agreed definition of adventure (Hopkins and Putman, 1993).
Risk, which has more serious implications for participants than uncertainty, is dominant in the literature as a central component in adventure (Miles and Priest, 1990).

Roger Putman noted that risks are an inevitable part of life and adventure education can be about developing strategies for dealing with these risks.

Adventure can be about exploring the limits of what is acceptable.
It is arguable that to incorporate this exploration as part of formal education might help young people to be more educated about the risky activities in which many of them indulge outwith the sphere of formal educational.

Conceptions of Adventure For some respondents, adventure could be of a small scale but nevertheless be a powerful experience.
For example, the experience of being on a night walk in a mountain area introducing city children to the stars of the night sky could constitute an adventure for these children.

This example also indicates the intensely personal nature of adventure noted by three respondents.

That is, an adventure for one individual is not necessarily an adventure for another.

However, these small scale adventures apart, it was possible to distinguish two categories which described respondents" conceptions of adventure.
I have identified these as broad and narrow conceptions of adventure.

The dimensions of these conceptions are summarised in Diagram 1.
(i) Broad Conception Firstly, respondents" broad conception visualises (1) a long time scale, living and working with others over an extended period of, for example, several days; (2) challenges which do not necessarily invoke high anxiety but which may be many and varied; (3) a significant degree of effort 36 DIAGRAM 1 - DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RESPONDENTS' NARROW AND BROAD CONCEPTIONS OF ADVENTURE NARROW VIEW BROAD VIEW OF OF ADVENTURE ADVENTURE SHORT TIME SCALE LONG TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIENCE HIGH THRILL MANY CHALLENGES CHALLENGES VARIED IN NATURE SOME OR MUCH EFFORT INVOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES DEVOLVED TO STUDENTS involved in carrying out the adventure; and (4) some devolution of responsibility to participants.
Examples of a broad conception would include some kind of journey or expedition.

Some of the experts and one of the practitioners held to either a broad or very broad view of adventure.

The broader view tended to be held by those respondents who had written about adventure in publications or whose organisation held to a philosophy where adventure had a key role.

(Outward Bound is an example of such an organisation.)

These were also respondents who placed adventure centrally in their thinking.
Some respondents were clear in accepting only a broad conception of adventure which, by their definition, would exclude a narrower view.

For example, abseiling requires little physical effort and would therefore be excluded under Peter Higgins" definition.

However, although not all the proponents of the broad conception of adventure discounted the narrow conception, their strong preference was to the broad as holding richer opportunities for learning and development.
One practitioner and four experts emphasised the importance of an expedition, journey or longterm project as an excellent way or even the ideal way of imparting adventure.

Roger Putman"s view was that !expeditioning is at the heart of Outdoor Adventure".

Although, 37 like !adventure", the term !expedition" is open to different interpretations, it would almost always involve complex planning, journeying out from a base, relating with other people over a period of time, and an objective.
This interpretation of !expedition" is consistent with the broad conception of adventure which embraces the exploring of relationships, or the tensions between self-centred needs and the needs of others.

The challenges involved in an expedition arise as much as from dealing with these sorts of problems as from the more conventional high thrill challenges of the narrow conception of adventure, described below.
(ii) Narrow Conception Some respondents described a narrow conception, visualising adventure as an experience which (1) can be limited by its duration; and (2) involves challenge which usually invokes a degree of anxiety from participants.

These respondents identified the thrill seeking challenge as a way of imparting adventure, characterised by one respondent as !something you get a bit of excitement, or thrill out of".
Examples of activities which fall within a narrow conception of adventure would include abseiling and white water rafting.

Some experts and most of the practitioners held to the narrow conception of adventure.

For those who held to this narrow conception, adventure was one of a number of dimensions which comprised their conceptual framework of Outdoor Education.

Other respondents were open to accepting both types of conceptions of adventure within their thinking.
The Concept of Responsibility within Broad and Narrow Conceptions of Adventure Given the importance that has been attached to the concept of responsibility as a dimension in this study, it is important to examine the different role of responsibility within the broad and narrow conceptions of adventure.

Within the narrow conception of adventure, there may be no devolution of responsibility to students, (other than in the limited area of deciding whether to participate or otherwise).
Indeed, the hazardous nature of the challenging activity may quite specifically preclude this possibility.

In contrast, within the broad conception of adventure, where an experience such as an expedition or a longterm project is undergone, a substantial degree of responsibility may be devolved to students.
38 Broad and Narrow Conceptions of Adventure within Frameworks of Outdoor Education Broad and narrow conceptions of adventure have an important bearing in understanding frameworks of Outdoor Education being delivered by educators or providers.

In general, where respondents offered a narrow conception of adventure, other important dimensions of Outdoor Education were placed elsewhere within their philosophy of Outdoor Education.
As an example, the dimension of the environment was considered to be important by all respondents, whether they held to a broad or narrow interpretation of adventure.

Generalising to all outdoor educators, it is arguable that if these outdoor educators place all important dimensions of Outdoor Education within their personalised frameworks of Outdoor Education, then these frameworks will be broadly equivalent and students may well achieve similar learning outcomes.
Therefore, the outcomes may be broadly equivalent independent of whether a broad or narrow conception of adventure is held.

(Examples of possible frameworks are shown in Diagram 2.)

Thus, as educationalists requiring an overview of Outdoor Education, it does not matter whether a broad or narrow conception of adventure is adopted, provided that, were a narrow conception to be adopted, other important dimensions are placed elsewhere within our framework of Outdoor Education.
For example, if our framework of Outdoor Education includes adventurous activities, personal and social development, and environmental education, this can be promoted as an acceptable and worthwhile model.

If our overview of Outdoor Education is conceived entirely around adventurous activities, but personal and social development and environmental education are encompassed within the conception of adventurous activities, then this is equally acceptable.
The problem arises when a narrow conception of adventure is the main constituent of a framework of Outdoor Education.

When a provider or educator within the sphere of Outdoor Education constructs a programme of mainly adventurous activities as a way of delivering Outdoor Education, and these adventurous activities are based around a narrow conception of adventure, then the Outdoor Education offered will also be of a narrow and limited educational value.
At this point, it is pertinent to note that Greenaway (1997) has highlighted the danger of the National Curriculum influencing thinking among educators towards a narrow, skills based view of adventure.

Within this study, two of the experts have also discerned this move of practice within Outdoor Education.
One of them, Peter Higgins, was quite clear about perceiving a shift towards the !MacDonaldisation" of Outdoor Education programmes, by which he meant the move towards shorter, mixed activities involving lots of thrills, and away from longer, deeper activities, citing as an 39 40 example that camping has almost disappeared from outdoor centre provision.
To encourage deeper thinking about adventure, it may help to encourage the development of a conception of adventure about which there is greater consensus among outdoor educators.

This may help promote the value, and also the values, of Outdoor Education as a whole both within the wider educational world and also outwith it.

This would then help to distinguish models of practice in which Outdoor Education is of a limited educational value from those where the models are of a wider and richer value.
This could be particularly helpful for managers of students (for example, headteachers) who may have limited knowledge of what is being purchased from an outside provider.

For example, if devolving responsibility to students is regarded as a key component of student learning and development, then an adventure programme which lacked this component would be of much less value to those managers than one which incorporated it.

Greenaway acknowledges the difficulties of conceptualising adventure.
In arguing for a process of developing images of adventure, he notes that !holistic models can seem vague and cumbersome" (1997, p. 18).

However, if good models are not developed, there is the danger that: Outdoor Adventure defaults to a narrow conceptual model of progression in activity skills (1997, p. 18).

Constraints on the imparting of adventure are also factors in promoting particular versions of adventure.
Significantly, it was felt by four experts that, within the field of Outdoor Education as a whole, the position of adventure was less prominent now than in the past.

Chris Loynes argued that allowing adventure to happen for students required a level of awareness which demanded a degree of experience on behalf of the educator.

He noted: the less money there is, the more inexperienced people you use, therefore the more controlled and more the contrived the activities have to be.
One can thus detect that limitations of resources in terms of finance may lead providers to promote a narrow version of adventure, rather than a broad version.

Finally, as will be argued in the concluding chapter, adventure has relevance for learning elsewhere and particularly in the classroom.

If we are to use adventure to inform classroom practice, we require to develop a greater understanding of the meaning of this vital concept.
41 THE ENVIRONMENT All respondents expressed the view that the environment was either an important or central part of Outdoor Education.

Additionally, three practitioners thought that there was potential to do more to educate students about the environment.

One practitioner and two experts were concerned about the lack (or loss) of a base within the curriculum for the environment.
Peter Higgins expressed it thus: as far as I know there isn"t an environmental education teacher ... in any school in Scotland ... [leaving] two ... of the most important things that a child could ever experience, environmental education [and] environmental studies, and Outdoor Education ... with no base.
Chris Loynes was concerned about the loss of feeling for the environment if it is used only as a place for some form of self-discovery: we begin to see the environment more and more just simply as a place which acts as a mirror against which we can discover who we are, becomes more and more a resource or a playground and it loses some of its sense of the ... sacredness of the place.
Finally, Rory Stewart noted that the UK lagged behind others in our education for the environment: I think in Britain, we are behind other areas, ... talking to colleagues who"ve worked in centres in America, there is more conscious effort to include environmental education, not in the theoretical sense, but in practical environmental education, into Outdoor Education programmes.

Discussion There was a slightly pensive tone to some of the discussions on the environment.
There was an acknowledgment that gestures towards the environment had a feeling of tokenism about them, both from the view of respondents" own practice, and a feeling of unfulfilled potential regarding the improvement of attitudes to the environment by the field in general.

More pragmatically, it could be argued that if environmental education is a central component of a curriculum, Outdoor Education programmes require to be examined for their environmental elements.
42 LEARNING Respondents were asked about possible benefits of Outdoor Education to classroom learning.

They were also encouraged to explore possible benefits in the way that students thought about their own learning.

Respondents identified three main ways in which students" learning benefited.

Firstly, six respondents considered it important to encourage students to think directly about their own general learning, rather than simply make subject orientated connections.
Secondly, seven respondents thought that increased self-confidence indirectly helped classroom learning.

Thirdly, five respondents cited the environment of the outdoors as a dimension in promoting students" learning.

Conscious Promotion of Learning Respondents consciously made efforts to stimulate students to think about their own learning.

For the three school based practitioners, the link to learning in the classroom was the most ready and practical connection.
The other two practitioners with bases in the community and Outward Bound were interested in students" learning outwith the arena of formal education.

The six responses (from five practitioners and one expert) were divided into two categories.

These were (i) examples of promoting students" thinking about learning, and (ii) encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning.
(i) Examples of promoting students" thinking about learning Probably because of the practical nature of their work and the context of their working, specific strategies for thinking about learning originated from practitioners only.

Examples of the strategies these four practitioners adopted are outlined below.
Alastair Seagroat focused specifically on students" learning processes: I think one of the things I"m quite keen on ... is looking at the process of learning with the children through Outdoor Education, you know, like !how do you learn a paddle stroke, how do you learn to do rockclimbing, what are the processes you go through?"

and then relating that to how they do that at school within a subject.
43 Chalmers Smith challenged students on their conceptions of what is involved in learning: I think a lot of what the kids think they"ve learned, they"ve only learned something by writing it down, and that"s partly true, but obviously when they"re out with me they don"t write anything down and that"s why I come back at the end of the day and I say !what have you learned?

", and they say !nothing."


... and that might be a different experience for them in that they"re learning something in a completely different sort of way than they would in normal school where they"re not going to a computer or a textbook or a video or something to use to help them find out something.

In challenging students" conceptions of learning, a commonplace attitude is being countered.
Boot and Reynolds, citing Bradford, noted that “most individuals seem unaware that they themselves can engage in a deliberate process of learning from everyday events” (1983, p. 6).

The most extreme cases are those students who believe that they are incapable of learning in any way.

Claire Patullo cited the instance of a woman who had literacy problems who learned to paddle a kayak.
The woman herself then stated that, having realised that she was able to learn to kayak, she could therefore learn in other areas of her life, and specifically in literacy.

The practitioner here had enabled the woman to challenge her own very negative view of her ability to learn.

Rory Stewart from Outward Bound cited the process of reviewing Outdoor Education experiences as a strategy for learning.

Students are encouraged to adopt reviewing as a learning strategy.
Thus, this learning strategy can follow from any experience, Outdoor Educational or otherwise.

Practitioners demonstrated a number of strategies all directed at improving students" learning.

Among the experts, there were no examples of respondents describing specific strategies for encouraging students to think consciously about their own learning.

Most used review as a developmental strategy, which may have incorporated direct learning strategies.
One expert was aware of the necessity of understanding students" needs for different learning styles.

Another expert acknowledged that it was an area to which he could consider giving more thought, and a third expert acknowledged the necessity of making the learning process conscious to students.
44 (ii) Encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning One practitioner and two experts were clear about the possibilities of encouraging students to take some responsibility for their learning through having taken some responsibility during Outdoor Education.

Glynn Roberts gave an example where Outdoor Education was consciously used as a metaphor in order to encourage sixth year grammar school girls to take much more responsibility for their own learning.
The programme incorporated many features familiar to the outdoors, such as putting up tents, canoeing and abseiling.

However, the girls were in charge of planning the course.

As Glynn Roberts stated: the headmistress allowed me to run a course with a group from the sixth form and it was all about responsibility for their own learning.

... they don"t question what the teacher says to them and I was trying to get them to think about who really was in charge of their education.

Was it the teachers or them?


So the course that I ran was very much about doing things for themselves.

It is interesting to note that the respondent above was advocating this approach with sixth year school students.

It may be the case that the ability of students to take responsibility for their own learning is only possible at a late stage of maturation.
The strategies described above on encouraging students to consider specific ways of learning are then superseded, or complemented, by the strategy of encouraging students to take some responsibility for their own global learning.

It is arguable that taking responsibility for one"s own learning must be a goal of lifelong learning, and that therefore these strategies must have relevance for older students.
Increased Confidence in the Outdoors Creating Increased Confidence in Learning Four practitioners and three experts were of the view that an increase in students" confidence in Outdoor Education could lead to an increase in the confidence of students to learn in the classroom.

This was an unprompted response by these respondents.

However, limitations of evidence regarding this area were acknowledged by some of these respondents.

Firstly, lack of rigorous evidence for these effects was acknowledged.
Secondly, any increased self-confidence may be short-lived.

Thirdly, if students learn or develop within an arena remote from their normal learning setting (as in, say, Outward Bound), undergo a powerful experience, and are returned to an unchanged classroom setting where no follow-up takes place, then positive effects regarding students" approaches to learning in the classroom may quickly diminish.
45 If students do gain an increased confidence in learning through an outdoor experience, then I suggest that there may be two ways in which this may take place.

Firstly, where students achieve in a task through overcoming a challenge of some kind, and this task has involved some clearly delineated learning process, then the student may have become more confident about the particular process of learning.

An example would be the case of the woman described in the previous section.
Although this process was described as a learning strategy, it was also a confidence boosting strategy.

(The woman would have required an increase in confidence in order to acknowledge her literacy problems to others.)

Secondly, where students" self-esteem is increased in some global way through Outdoor Education, then it may be possible for them to feel that they are more able to overcome obstacles of any type, of which learning may be one example.
Although increases in self-esteem have been documented for students undergoing Outward Bound and related experiences (Marsh, Richards and Barnes, 1986; Finkenberg, Shows and DiNucci, 1994)3, improvements in the self-concept deriving from adventurous activities which directly affect students" learning within schools have not (to my knowledge) been researched.
The Environment of Outdoor Education as a Dimension in Learning The environment as a dimension of learning was suggested by three practitioners and two experts and, importantly, was an unsolicited dimension arising in responses to different interview questions.

Cliff White pointed to the notion of the idea of !barriers to learning" that students carry around with them: I think there are barriers to learning and sometimes you know you have to almost push through them.
A good teacher can push through them by his presentation, by his energy, but in Outdoor Education it is often the environment, the experience itself, that pushes through ... and creates an emotional temperature or sufficient impact to cause them to learn.
Roger Putman, within the context of promoting confidence in order to facilitate learning, stated: I mean it seems to me that if you take the example of confidence and you mentioned earlier the shyness that young people naturally have about standing up in front of a group and saying something for fear of making a fool of themselves, we have to provide opportunities in which that sort of 3 However, refer to p.12 in the literature review for problems regarding the theory and measurement of self-esteem.
46 confidence can be engendered.

... the outdoors is one place you can do it, and you know in a sense people let down their guard in the outdoors a bit.

It"s very informal.

I mean I think perhaps the point about the outdoors is that it"s not the formal setting.

Classrooms, even in the most trendy progressive schools, are formal places.
Therefore, there seems to be both an emotional engagement and an informality engendered by being in the outdoors which creates the ambience that allows students to consider their capacity to learn in new ways.

In support of a role for emotional engagement in learning, Proudman regards the creation of !emotional investment" (1992, p. 22) as one of the major positive, differentiating elements between experiential education and other forms of significant learning.
TRANSFER AND CHANGE Two types of changes among students are examined.

Firstly, the effect a particular experience has on future learning experiences, termed transfer of learning (Gass, 1990), is explored briefly.

If this definition is accepted, the first part of the previous section (Conscious Promotion of Learning), where respondents were stimulating students to generalise learning from specific contexts, could be placed within the theme of transfer.
However, as discussed under !labelling themes" in the chapter on methodology, it was decided to separate !learning" and !transfer".

The analysis of transfer has thus been confined to quite specific areas of Outdoor Education.

Secondly, changes in attitudes of students are also examined.

The perceived benefits of Outdoor Education are felt more indirectly through changed attitudes to the school as an institution.
Transfer of Interpersonal Skills Effort to consciously transfer interpersonal skills was highlighted by the two practitioners who were not involved in the formal education sector, Rory Stewart and Claire Patullo.

They used conscious processes, such as reviewing Outdoor Education experiences, to assist their students in achieving transfer from the Outdoor Educational experience to other areas of their lives.
It is noteworthy that these two practitioners represent organisations which consciously set out to achieve firstly, transfer of skill from Outdoor Education to other areas of life, and secondly, personal development whose benefits can be realised beyond the confines of Outdoor Education.

47 At least two other respondents noted the potential for the effective use of transfer and the necessity of making transfer conscious in order to be effective.
Ali Kellas pointed to some of the difficulties in helping young children develop connections in order to transfer learning effectively.

Change of attitudes The very strong theme expressed by all respondents within the formal education sector, and also highlighted by some respondents outwith it, was a positive change in attitudes towards their schools by students who had participated in a residential experience.
All school practitioners, one other practitioner (five in total) and all five experts with experience of schools expressed this view.

The residentials were regarded as particularly powerful in fostering positive attitudes towards schools.
Alastair Seagroat quoted the following statement from a classroom teacher: I had a teacher in today from one of the schools I deal with, and who"d just been away for two weeks with forty-eight third years and she was just commenting on how the relationships between the teacher and the pupils just are so vastly enhanced by this experience ... and she was commenting about how this ... enhancement of ... the relationship which carries on from third year onwards, and so it"s seen as a long term benefit within the school, for those staff and students involved.
In unsolicited responses, three of the practitioners who were involved with schools pointed to the dimension that made the change in attitude so positive.

They referred to classroom teachers sharing experiences with students as being crucially important to improving relationships within the school.

Some respondents also expected non-residential based Outdoor Education programmes to produce attitude change as a consequence, although to a lesser extent and sustained for a shorter time.
48 Discussion If the broad view of adventure described previously is assumed to include exploring relationships, then it could be argued that both teachers and students were sharing positive aspects of an adventure.

It would seem reasonable to draw the inference that one of the reasons that these residentials are so powerful is that an improved understanding between teachers and students is developed in a way that would be difficult to achieve within the formal school setting.
Sue Gregory gave an example of this improved understanding: Well, we had a youngster away ... he"s very lacking in self-confidence and any new skill, he finds it extremely difficult to apply himself, he would rather opt out, and in the situation last week we were able to make sure that he didn"t opt out.

He took part in canoeing and he did really well, and I didn"t realise that he had this tendency through lack of confidence to not try things, and so I just went ahead and made sure he did it.
The other staff said that that was great, that he did that, because he wouldn"t have done it if he hadn"t been really encouraged, and shown the way.

So I think they would see that, some one working in the classroom with that youngster, and use that experience.

It is possible to identify four ways in which school learning is indirectly benefited.

Firstly, one could conceive that students who are happier in school as a consequence of a residential experience would tend to learn more effectively.
The importance of this emotional dimension of learning is thus implicitly acknowledged by the school.

One indicator, quoted by Chris Loynes, was that the truancy rate in his school was significantly reduced due to his outdoor programme.

The inference is that students felt happier about being in school.
Secondly, as can be perceived from Sue Gregory"s quote, staff gain more understanding of individual students successfully learning by being made more aware of the different contexts within which students successfully learn.

Thirdly, staff gain more understanding of the minority of students who have major problems in other areas of their lives.

This comes about by simply talking with students in an informal setting, but it can also come about through observation.
Alastair Seagroat notes, in relation to pupils who are sometimes negatively perceived by staff: 49 ... teachers having a positive image of pupils doing something in a context they"re not used to seeing the pupils in.

Fourthly, an unprompted dimension, noted by one practitioner, was improved relationships among staff who have been together on a residential.

These improved staff relationships would also indirectly benefit students" learning through enhanced working relationships within the school.
There is a most important inference to draw from the above.

That is, if staff and students sharing experiences improves relationships and consequently attitudes within a school, then Outdoor Education experiences need to be planned in order to take account of this.

The activities that the students undertake may be less important than the fact that the students and staff share in undertaking them.
For example, large numbers of staff and students sharing many experiences in a self-catering outdoor centre will undergo a very different experience in comparison with a small number of staff and a large number of students in an outdoor centre where activities are provided by instructors who have no connection with the school, and where there is minimal school staff interaction during the experience.

The former experience will lead to much greater improved attitudes by students than the latter.
Rory Stewart cited an example of a course where outcomes had not been clearly planned: Where it"s been a more negative side of things, or maybe not so much negative, but where there"s been less outcome, it"s been something where a course has been thrown in at the end of exams as a filler, and quite often it"s just been an activity course.

General Points on Transfer (i) Persistence Respondents were prompted on the possible transfer of persistence (or determination, or effort) as a method of learning.
No respondents attempted to encourage students to consider persistence as a possible learning strategy.

Occasionally, persistence came up obliquely as, for example, a strategy for task completion.

This contrasts with promoting increased confidence or self-worth that almost all respondents highlighted as a developmental strategy with possible improved learning outcomes.

This negative result regarding persistence indicates that there is potential for development here within Outdoor Education.
50 (ii) Transfer of teaching styles Chris Loynes pointed to transfer of teaching styles from the relatively informal Outdoor Education setting to the more formal classroom setting.

He cited an example where this was achieved.

There was some interaction from a classroom teacher who had engaged with students on an extra-curricular basis, and had noted that some students with whom he had had difficulties in achieving learning outcomes were successfully learning skills within Outdoor Education.
He changed his teaching style within the classroom with these particular students.

The context of the outdoors had exposed him to a different teaching style which had subsequently been adopted by him.

These considerations lead us directly onto an examination of teaching styles adopted by respondents.

TEACHING STYLES Firstly, it should be noted that the term !teaching" does not always rest easily in the minds of some Outdoor Educators.
Because of the approach which they adopted to student learning, some were unhappy with the didactic associations of the term.

Sometimes !delivering" or !facilitating" was used, although there was perhaps no single satisfactory expression.

Respondents were presented with a brief, simplified account of two broadly contrasting teaching approaches, reflecting the long recognised two major possible approaches to education.
The traditional approach, which is associated with a teaching style where knowledge and skills are handed on from teachers to students, and the progressive approach, where students have more say over what they learn and how it is learned.

Respondents were asked about their practice, and their preferences for particular teaching styles.
It is important to bear in mind that, although in comparison with classroom based education, Outdoor Education takes place in informal settings and is associated with high student motivation, it is perfectly possible to teach Outdoor Education in a completely didactic style.

A progressive style of teaching is not, therefore, assumed.

51 Preferences and Practice Both preferences of teaching styles and actual stated practices have been examined in this section.
Although, throughout the interviews, respondents indicated differences in teaching styles, it is important not to overemphasise these differences.

A high degree of flexibility in teaching styles was revealed by most respondents.

Additionally, the difficulty of categorising respondents is indicated by the example of one practitioner.
He was passionately in favour of a student centred approach in terms of meeting student needs, but nevertheless adopted a traditional approach through a belief in limiting student choice.

Furthermore, even where respondents acknowledged the adoption of a traditional style, such as demonstrating a skill and having students copy, the students may be given responsibility of a more serious nature than they would be given in a classroom.
For example, a student might be required to ensure the safety of a fellow through the handling of a climbing rope.

On a general point, it is important to note that two experts and one practitioner argued in favour of not distinguishing Outdoor Education from formal education in discussing appropriateness of teaching styles.

They felt that discussion about the suitability of particular teaching styles should be generalised to the whole of education.
All respondents bar one declared that they practised a mix or a blend or a balance of traditional and progressive teaching styles.

Only one respondent did not declare for a progressive approach at some time during his teaching, although evidence of his practice suggested that the students did receive some degree of responsibility.

In the analysis below, respondents" preferred teaching styles have been distinguished from their practices.
The first section deals with those respondents who do not have a preference of teaching styles.

The second section deals with the one respondent who preferred traditional teaching; it then deals with respondents" practice of traditional teaching, whether they preferred traditional teaching as a style or otherwise.
The third section deals with those respondents who preferred progressive teaching methods; it then deals with respondents" practice of progressive teaching, again whether they preferred progressive teaching as a style or otherwise.

A final point should be made.

Only those respondents who made a clear statement were placed within the category of preferring progressive teaching styles.
It might have been possible to infer these respondents" preferred approaches from additional evidence from their responses to other questions, particularly questions regarding conceptions of adventure.

However, as a principle, inferring preferences was avoided, as 52 it was not completely clear that these respondents would have usually adopted a progressive style in non-adventure situations although, given their general attitude and philosophy, I would have thought this likely.
Therefore, I would tend to assume that the progressive response is underepresented.

Respondents could be divided into three groups.

(i) No single approach adopted Two experts and three practitioners declared no preference in approaches to teaching.

These respondents generally adopted a style based around students" needs.

This is not to say that other respondents did not, but these respondents seemed to take a more neutral, detached view of teaching strategies.
One respondent did declare that she actually felt more comfortable in the traditional style, but this was only the case in the area of skills teaching.

Elsewhere, as in the area of personal and social development, she was open to other teaching styles.
The flexible approach of one expert, Drew Michie, was expressed as follows: circumstances dictate it, but in fact, I do try and vary the [teaching] style according to how I believe people are developing in terms of giving them responsibility and sometimes you can give them responsibility and sometimes I use reciprocal methods, sometimes I use practice method, sometimes I use an inclusion method, sometimes I use convergent and divergent methods.
I think that I probably use a range of styles now and try and make it appropriate and I also try and ensure the people I"m working with, in fact, have that information and begin to experiment with styles as well.

In the pursuit of skiing, Drew Michie"s advocacy of this flexible approach has helped to bring about training courses devoted to the promotion of varied teaching styles.

Thus these respondents tended to adopt teaching styles based on learners" needs.
(ii) The adoption of a traditional approach (a) The respondent who preferred a traditional approach 53 One expert, who was mainly involved with primary children, declared a preference for a traditional approach.

However, he regarded himself as very child centred, as he and his staff focused very clearly on students" needs, using discussion as one method of establishing the nature of these needs.

He justified his approach on two grounds.


Firstly, children had too little knowledge of Outdoor Education to make choices and secondly, were students to be given a choice, they would tend to choose the easiest option, to their educational disadvantage.

This expert also offered the observation that much student choice is subject to manipulation by classroom teachers or outdoor centre instructors and that therefore, for many students, choice tends to be more apparent than real.
It should be noted that, in practice, children were given responsibility, such as being encouraged to undertake walks which were remotely supervised by staff.

(b) application of a traditional teaching style When respondents did adopt a traditional approach to teaching, it was in two main areas of Outdoor Education.

The first was in the area of safety considerations, such as teaching universally recognised procedures in rockclimbing, or having students agreeing to rules of behaviour.
For example, one teacher practitioner indicated that safety issues were !not up for discussion, they"re not student centred, they"re quite clearly to do with my professional competence."

The second area where respondents sometimes took a traditional approach was in skills teaching in outdoor pursuits.

This happened for two reasons.

Firstly, National Governing Body Guidelines often dictated the ways in which desired outcomes should be taught.
For example, there might be only one recognised way to effect a sweep stroke in kayaking.

Practitioners were therefore reluctant to have students adopt practice contrary to these guidelines, particularly if they thought the students might pursue the activity as a leisure pursuit in the future.

Secondly, some practitioners thought that the students would not gain much from a particular teaching session unless they were !given" some basic knowledge.

Sailing was cited as an example.


54 As will be shown, practitioners also perceived possible opportunities for progressive teaching in the above areas.

(iii) The adoption of a progressive approach (a) respondents who preferred a progressive approach Three experts and three practitioners declared a preference for a progressive approach.
Returning to the areas explored in the applications of traditional teaching styles, safety and skills, some respondents perceived opportunities for progressive teaching in these areas.

(b) application of a progressive teaching style Again examining safety, while all understood the necessity to require standards of behaviour by students, two respondents were keen to emphasise that boundaries were discussed with students.
Alastair Seagroat stated: one thing I"m very keen on with students is a dialogue and discussion of rules, of contracts and things like this about what"s appropriate.
Rory Stewart argued against simply imparting knowledge: And perhaps that"s not to say that you can"t impart knowledge to folks in that sort of method of teaching [traditional], but instead of just limiting the flow to a one way process, you make it a two way process Within the area of skills teaching, respondents made such comments as !outdoor activities, there is a lot of scope for them doing their own thing within it."
In the example of sailing, having taught some basic skills using traditional methods, one respondent asked students to sail in a new direction relative to the wind.

The students were left to work out how to do this by themselves.

This contrasts with a traditional !teacher demonstrates, students practice" approach, which could be used for all new skills taught at any level of sailing.

Those who preferred the progressive style were open to using a traditional style where they thought it appropriate.
Within the context of working with hardcore young offenders, Chris Loynes stated: giving them some kind of order and discipline ... and the way they are able to hang onto that, and sustain it afterwards, by all accounts so far, anyway, is impressive, because it does get them back on track.

55 All respondents argued for a major role for Outdoor Education in personal and social development.
Some respondents argued in favour of devolving some responsibility onto students as part of personal and social development.

For example, Cliff White stated that !within boundaries ...

I"ll often leave students to discover, explore, make decisions for themselves, which is what I want them to do."

Rationale for the Adoption of a Progressive Approach Three practitioners and four experts gave unsolicited reasons in favour of adopting a progressive approach.
They felt that there was an improvement in understanding and learning by students.

Rory Stewart summed up this reasoning as follows: and I think folks value what they"re doing more that way, and therefore they"re more likely to go away with some learning as opposed to just being passive receivers.
They"re actively involved in generating whatever is coming up.4 Very importantly, two experts pointed out that it was easier to adopt different teaching styles in the outdoors because of smaller numbers of students per teaching group.

It was thus much easier for an educator to observe and discuss students" learning needs.
Discussion It is worth enunciating the imperative that, because a flexible approach to teaching styles is available to Outdoor Educators in a way that may not be possible with larger numbers within a classroom, it behoves them to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them.

From respondents" evidence, it would seem to be the case that they frequently did adopt progressive teaching styles.

This approach is consistent with the importance that they attached to personal and social development.
As an example, students who are given more choice through a progressive teaching approach in carrying to fruition an expedition are more likely to have a feeling of !ownership" towards their achievements and are thus more likely to achieve a greater degree of development.

Indeed, it would be difficult to conceive of a non-progressive approach, such as a didactic teaching style, leading to a significant degree of personal and social development of students.
However, respondents were not rigid about adopting a progressive approach and were prepared to chose teaching styles on the basis of students" needs.

4 This is the second part of the quotation on p.54 56 Finally, it is worth noting that, according to two experts, in comparison with the training world in general and the outdoor management training world in particular, classroom teachers seemed to be lacking in knowledge of learning styles.
The implication was that the formal education system was following, rather than leading, the training world in the development of their knowledge of learning styles.

INHERENT VALUE OR ADDED VALUE?

This heading addresses the degree to which respondents perceive the experience of Outdoor Education as having value within, or of, itself.
The alternative perception is to comprehend Outdoor Education as an experience which ought to add value to a wider educational provision, or is only to be viewed within the context of a wider educational provision.

Where Outdoor Education takes place within a formal educational structure, as in schools, this wider educational provision could be the curriculum of the school itself.

Where Outdoor Education takes place outwith schools, a social or lifelong learning context could be envisaged.
Respondents were asked to discuss the value of an isolated experience of Outdoor Education in comparison with using the experience to make connections in areas outwith Outdoor Education.

These connections could be made by reviewing or analysing the experience.

The Outdoor Education Experience as Possessing Inherent Value Only one expert was of the view that there could be full value attached to an Outdoor Education experience which was isolated from a wider context.
He reasoned that this was because one of his key aims in education was to inculcate a love of activity throughout life.

Two other experts expressed the view that there could be some value in undergoing an isolated Outdoor Education experience.

The example of a week in an outdoor centre was cited as an example of being !like a beacon" in a student"s life.
However, they were both strongly of the view that an isolated experience was an educational opportunity wasted due to not realising latent learning and developmental opportunities for students.

Three practitioners were of the view that the experience of Outdoor Education could stand in isolation.

One respondent justified his thinking by making a comparison of students" classroom experience, where the students are constantly subjected to assessment, with their Outdoor Education experience.
He felt that the students perceived Outdoor Education as !a breath of fresh air" within the school syllabus.

Two respondents were concerned that a strong emphasis on both outdoor 57 activities and also students simply experiencing the countryside remained as part of Outdoor Education thinking.

One respondent expressed her feeling thus: I still think that it"s so good for children to get out into the countryside, experience the countryside, experience activities, and that"s still my main theme.
These respondents were concerned that this emphasis could be lost were an !overemphasis" on other educational aims, such as personal and social development, to emerge within Outdoor Education.

Although these respondents did not always encourage their students to make connections outwith Outdoor Education on a day to day basis, it was not the case that these respondents never encouraged students to do this.

For example, some respondents sought students" responses at the end of their courses.
Also, the fact that one practitioner decided to contrast his Outdoor Education provision with the provision that students received elsewhere in school, implies that the students" whole educational provision was considered.

Thus, it is not quite true to say that these experiences took place in complete isolation.
The Outdoor Education Experience as adding Value to a Wider Provision The five experts and three practitioners who were in favour of using the Outdoor Education experience to add value to a wider educational provision, or were in favour of the use of Outdoor Education as some kind of developmental tool, were generally strongly of this view.

There were two main arguments put forward by respondents in favour of placing the Outdoor Educational experience within a wider context.
Firstly, it was felt that Outdoor Education experiences ought to be reviewed in order to encourage the students to extract the maximum benefit from the experience.

Reviewing was viewed as a method of assisting students in deriving meaning and value from their experiences.
Notwithstanding the importance of reviewing, most respondents expressed sensitivity towards the group participating in this process, whether they were young primary school children, whose main interest is to !poke the world", or young graduates undergoing management training, where the review might take longer than the activity.
Secondly, an holistic view of education perceives Outdoor Education as a way of delivering some of the aims of education, not necessarily by making a unique case for Outdoor Education, but by viewing Outdoor Education as a powerful method of delivering these wider educational 58 aims.

Cliff White was of the view that it was important to know what aims schools were trying to achieve, and then decide whether Outdoor Education was the best way of achieving these aims.
He stated emphatically: Why are you doing Outdoor Education?

Why are you educating children anyway?

What are you trying to achieve?

So Outdoor Education should only be exposed to the same searching questions that any other subject should be exposed to.
I think it"s taken for granted that PE is OK or History is OK. Where respondents did make conscious connections and attempted to place the Outdoor Educational experience within a wider context, the process of review was the usual means employed by respondents.

When reviewing is incorporated into an Outdoor Education experience, time for reviewing is formally planned.

The reviewing itself is usually based on some form of Kolb"s (1984) learning cycle, in which the educator facilitates the process.
Discussion As will have been noted, there are differences among respondents regarding inherent value, with the school based practitioners more likely to argue in favour of the inherent value of Outdoor Education.

The argument in favour of reflection is standard among experiential learning theories.

Eighty years ago, Dewey, stated that “no experience having a meaning is possible without some element of thought” (1917, p. 169).
Boots and Reynolds state that “mere activity is not sufficient nor is simply “having” an experience” (1983, p. 5).

The problems of some of these experiential learning theories have been identified in the literature review.5 More recent literature supports the view that learning can take place without conscious reflection.
MacLeod, citing Brookfield and Jarvis, notes that: conceptions of learning which focus on internal, mental processes, ... reflect a dualistic view of the person in which the body and mind are considered to be separate entities.

This could account for why these theorists and others hold that some experiences involve the mind in learning while others may not (1996, p. 104).

5 See McLeod, p.10 59 MacLeod (1996) also notes the difficulties of putting some experiences into words.
She emphasises the non-verbal nature of many practices, the inadequacy of words in describing, say, the death of a close friend, the difficulty of describing experience and the difficulty of revealing meaning in experience.

In this case the difficulty of articulation, necessary for a student to reflect and connect, has been highlighted.
In describing the everyday learning of nurses, MacLeod states: through their bodies, the Sisters have access to an understanding of which they are not always aware, and which they may not be able to describe.

This perhaps reflects the intentionality and the memory which resides in habitual, bodily ways of knowing ... Further, it reflects the view that all our experiences are !enfleshed" and that our body never !forgets" ...
If indeed our bodies never forget, then we gain experience in any situation in which we find ourselves, and therefore all situations are sources of learning (1996, p. 104).

In a review of experiential learning theories, she notes: The separation of the body, the complete overlooking of the body in experiential learning is particularly surprising; i.e.

the body is completely separated from the mind (1996, p. 15).
It would be difficult to imagine any Outdoor Education experience where students" bodies are not integral to the experience of learning.

Turning to the problem of reflection, MacLeod states: if reflection is as conscious and rational as some theorists lead us to believe ... we should be able to report it.

However, there is some evidence to the contrary.

In some studies of learning, people have been unable to give sensible reports of their learning from introspection ...
In addition, learning that occurs without conscious thought has been found to be inaccessible through verbal reports.

...

It would appear, that like experience, reflection is something of a familiar but poorly understood entity.

We can speculate about what goes on within reflection, but cannot entirely understand it (1996, p. 25).

MacLeod concentrates on the difficulties of the review process.

However, Chris Loynes gave a different justification in favour of leaving an experience !unconscious".
He noted that one way of attempting to understand the outdoor experience in terms of personal growth is as a myth or a fairy tale, which allows you: to construct yourself at an unconscious level, ... then the whole process of making conscious the meaning of the experience immediately destroys, 60 according to these ideas, the unconscious processes of the myth or the fairy tale of the experience.

The above are not arguments against reviewing, of which several respondents cited the value.
Rather, they are arguments against the perspective that a non-reviewed experience is necessarily a learning or development opportunity wasted.

Powerful experiences are often sought by Outdoor Educationalists as a way of promoting learning and personal development.

Where students have undergone such an experience, and where a high degree of emotion is involved, then the argument that this experience may have embraced valuable learning, even without review, may be particularly applicable.
However, even where the advantages of reviewing are accepted for a particular experience, it should be recognised by the educator that the review process can alter a group experience which is subjectively interpreted but intuitively shared by the individuals within the group, to an experience which, by being objectively examined, is changed for the individuals involved.

Finally, a few respondents in this study have argued for the consideration of Outdoor Education as a subject, at least in a partial sense.
Provided the aims of the school are fulfilled, as in Cliff White"s questioning (see p. 58), Outdoor Education could stand unconnected in the way that other subjects, rightly or wrongly, also do.

CONCEPTIONS, PRACTICE AND POLICY Changes in conceptions over time about Outdoor Education focus firstly on the way in which respondents perceived changes in the field.

Secondly, changes in practice are examined.

Here, changes in practice mean respondents" perceptions of changes in practice.
It will be perceived that there is a lack of hard knowledge about actual practice.

Thirdly, national educational policy is examined as it impinges on the practice of Outdoor Education.

The practice promoted as a result of national policy is contrasted with the thinking of the respondents in this study.

Perceived Changes in Conceptions and Practices of Outdoor Education over Time One trend was perceived by the majority of correspondents.
Four practitioners and four experts perceived changes in thinking about Outdoor Education as characterised by the awareness that Outdoor Education is not just about teaching skills in order to develop competence 61 within outdoor pursuits, but can also be used to foster students" personal and social development.6 Two of the experts who were clear that this was a significant change in thinking had written extensively within this area.
I thus felt that more weight should be attached to their views than the one expert who (on prompting) disagreed with this trend.

Compared with the non-school based practitioners, the school based practitioners were less forceful than other respondents in viewing the trend of the field towards the use of Outdoor Education for personal and social development as a major change.

Indeed, some only acknowledged the change after prompting.
Assuming the perception that there has been a major shift in thinking in the use of Outdoor Education in delivering personal and social development, it is legitimate to enquire as to why the school based practitioners are less aware of this.

Speculatively, one could suggest the following: Firstly, those in schools work in relative isolation and are less aware of trends outwith their immediate area.
Secondly, changes in thinking and in practice toward the use of personal and social development within local authority based Outdoor Education provision may in reality be limited.

One widely experienced practitioner, having worked in some LEA outdoor centres in the early 90s, perceived no change towards personal and social development in this type of provision.
A further limited piece of evidence is given by the number of personal and social development courses (three) in comparison with number of outdoor skills courses (thirty-four) offered for teaching staff by Edinburgh Education Department at the present time [1997].

This is a strong indication of the lack of interest by a local authority in promoting the growth of awareness among its school staff of the concept of personal and social development.
Moreover, there is evidence from some respondents that thinking about Outdoor Education in this area may even be regressing.

Evidence for this possible regression is noted below under the provision for Outdoor Education within the English National Curriculum.
However, in contrast to the above, it is important to take account of Roger Putman"s view that changes in thinking towards an increasing focus on personal and social development and a holistic view of learning were now more usual among outdoor centre instructors.

The limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

However, it is clear that there may well be a difference 6 The term !educational vehicle" was sometimes used.
It is usually taken to be synonymous with !personal and social development".

62 between the thinking within LEAs and the thinking within other areas of Outdoor Education.

That is, the LEA sector has not moved towards the use of the outdoors for personal and social development to the same extent as have other providers, particularly those within the charitable sector.
Reinforcing evidence for this relative lack of change is provided firstly by Peter Higgins, who noted change in practice over time towards shorter, more fun activities within outdoor centres, and secondly by Chris Loynes, who noted the move by schools away from a holistic view of Outdoor Education caused by the requirements of the National Curriculum.

It may also be the case that both of these perceptions have truth in them (i.e.

that some LEA provision has changed but other LEA provision has not).
The development of thinking about the practice of Outdoor Education may well be patchy because both developments and reduction of resources within Outdoor Education throughout the UK have proceeded at different rates in different areas.

Perceptions of the Causes of Change Four practitioners and four experts viewed the changes as being driven by costs.
Reduced budgetary provision and devolved school management had lead to increased scrutiny by, and accountability to, those outwith the Outdoor Education service.

This increased probing had lead to the “exposing” of Outdoor Education as an expensive service.

Consequently, those involved in the field have been required to make explicit the case for the value of Outdoor Education.

Personal and social development was then developed more coherently as a major justification for retaining Outdoor Education.
However, Chris Loynes felt that the change would have happened in any event, due to a maturing of the field.

Two teacher practitioners and four experts also pointed to curriculum changes as effecting change in Outdoor Education.

The recognition of Outdoor Education in National Curriculum documents had had an effect on practice.
The Place of Outdoor Education within the Curriculum Because of the focus of this study on education, the place of Outdoor Education within the formal school curriculum required to be addressed.

Respondents were asked about the relevance of Outdoor Education within the formal curriculum 63 Firstly, it is important to note that the entire future of Outdoor Education was viewed as being under threat.
Three practitioners and five experts expressed this concern about the future of Outdoor Education within the school curriculum.

In support of this concern regarding the future, four practitioners now perceived Outdoor Education as being less valued by those outwith the field than in the past.
Some respondents recognised that some form of outdoor pursuits or even some form of Outdoor Education would go on in the UK, because of private demand for it, but they saw this as being supplied by the commercial sector, rather than by local authorities.

Regarding the place of Outdoor Education within the formal curriculum, Scotland and England require to be examined separately.
(i) Scotland In Scotland, the place of Outdoor Education is acknowledged within a number of Scottish Office Curriculum Guidelines.

These include the 5-14 Personal and Social Development Guidelines, the 5-14 Expressive Arts Guidelines and the 5-14 Environmental Studies Guidelines, as well as within Standard and Higher Grade Physical Education.

Three practitioners and one expert saw opportunities for Outdoor Education within the 5-14 Guidelines and SCOTVEC modules.
However, one other expert pointed to the reality that, firstly, there was no compulsion for any school to have Outdoor Education provision, and secondly, the failure of Outdoor Education as a subject to be granted recognition by the Secretary of State [in 1991] as a critical setback for the future of Outdoor Education within the curriculum.

(ii) England.
(ii) England.

According to respondents, the National Curriculum initially anticipated a broad and balanced curriculum, giving these respondents grounds for optimism regarding the place of Outdoor Education.

The only part of the curriculum where Outdoor Education is actually compulsory is !Outdoor and Adventurous Activities" which comes under Physical Education.

This is compulsory for one period per week at key stages three and four.
According to respondents, the !Outdoor and Adventure Experience" is often delivered, if it is delivered at all, within the school playground, usually as orienteering or a form of !challenge" activities.

Three experts (out of four based in England) were unhappy with the position of Outdoor Education within the National Curriculum.
The minor place allocated to Outdoor Education and its base within Physical Education points to a considerable lack of understanding by curriculum 64 planners (or perhaps, rather, curriculum implementors) as to its potential within other areas of the curriculum, particularly personal and social development.
This lack of recognition for the potential of Outdoor Education as a way of imparting personal and social development conflicts in the strongest possible way with the value placed on personal and social development by every respondent in this study.

There was a perception by some of the experts that personal and social development was not taken seriously anywhere within the formal school curriculum.
As evidence for this, OFSTED inspections were deemed to be only interested in subject areas and to have little concern for other areas of the curriculum.
Evidence for the practice of Outdoor Education moving to a narrower focus has already been noted with Chris Loynes" perception of a change by English schools in their approach: [The National Curriculum] focused teachers especially on a particular way of working and encouraged them to see the outdoors as, really, an outdoor classroom rather than anything else because they had to support their outdoor teaching by identifying what they were achieving against the National Curriculum and took teachers away from a more holistic approach to Outdoor Education which I think had been previously practised.
Similarly, the practice of delivering adventure, as outlined in the section on adventure, is seriously at odds with many respondents" conceptions of adventure and most clearly at odds with those who held to a broad conception of adventure.

Thus, one can detect a major discrepancy regarding conceptions of Outdoor Education between policymakers and curriculum planners on the one hand and by all of the respondents in this study on the other.
The one would appear to hold a narrow, physical education, skills based view of Outdoor Education.

The other hold to a very broad view encompassing skills, personal and social development and many other dimensions.

As one example among many, the fact that no fewer than six respondents used Outdoor Education as a tool to encourage students to think about their own learning demonstrates just one aspect of the range of applications for which Outdoor Education is used by respondents.
Communicating Thinking about Outdoor Education Concern about the place, or lack of it, of Outdoor Education within the curriculum was manifested by three practitioners and five experts.

These respondents expressed regret in some form about perceived missed 65 opportunities within the field of Outdoor Education which had lead to its marginalisation, or to its continued marginalisation, in relation to the curriculum.

They felt that the field had failed to take initiative in the following areas.
Firstly, there was a lack of clear thinking about Outdoor Education in general; secondly, there was a need to articulate or communicate the benefits of Outdoor Education to the wider world; and thirdly, there was developmental potential within the field of Outdoor Education which professionals had not made sufficient effort to fulfil.
Solas (1992) has highlighted the importance of “making explicit teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning” (p. 220) and points to tools to assist in bringing this about.

Indeed, although Solas is focusing at the classroom level, it is arguable that any process which would help overcome lack of clear thinking that has been noted could benefit the field of Outdoor Education.
The concept of adventure could serve as an illustration of a lack of clear thinking, as well as a lack of consensual thinking.

Chris Loynes notes the marginalisation of his preferred approach to adventure, (which has been described on p. 34): there"s a third approach7 which is perhaps is less coherent and less easy to recognise which is the way I prefer, which is seriously marginalised, I suspect, at the moment.
The problems of clarifying concepts within the field of Outdoor Education are recognised (Greenaway, 1997).

Solas (1992) has pointed to the necessity of articulating implicit thinking.

Within this study, respondents have raised the problems of lack of articulation, communication and development of important contributions which Outdoor Education could make to education in general.
In the final chapter, some important conclusions regarding the contributions that Outdoor Education can make towards students" learning and development will be highlighted.

Further, the implications contained within the data of the study will be developed.

Some !filling in" of some of the dimensions of the conceptually challenging area of adventure can be completed.
Thus, it is to be hoped that the discussion within this chapter will help in supplying justifications of the importance of Outdoor Education.

7 This approach contrast with firstly a thrill seeking approach e.g.

bungee jumping, and secondly a sports based approach e.g.

rockclimbing.

66 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is two fold.

Firstly, the major conclusions from the chapter on analysis and discussion are highlighted.
Secondly, implications are drawn from the conceptions of adventure outlined by respondents.

It is the case that the Outdoor Education literature has made surprisingly little use of current theorising or empirical findings from Educational Psychology.
Accordingly, it seemed appropriate to begin to address this deficit; and to devote a relatively large amount of space to this objective of using the Educational Psychology literature to illuminate practice and to provoke development within the field of Outdoor Education.
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT The conclusion that most respondents had changed towards incorporating the concept of personal and social development as part of their framework of Outdoor Education, or alternatively always had incorporated this concept within their framework, is not of itself particularly noteworthy.

Indeed, Hunt (1989) had noted that personal and social development was the predominant aim of outdoor educators.
However, two points of interest follow: Firstly, the importance attached by respondents to the place of students" personal and social development within an Outdoor Education programme was universal.

However, there were variations in the degree of importance attached to personal and social development programmes by respondents.

Secondly, although the importance of this concept was universally recognised, there were perceptions that personal and social development within the LEAs was limited.
The place of personal and social development within the formal curriculum, although justified within curriculum documents, was seen to be marginalised.

In particular, the place of Outdoor Education within the English National Curriculum was seen to be both limited in extent and also in conception.

The perceived marginalisation, at least in England, of personal and social development is probably the result of the focus of the education system on measurable attainment and school league tables.
Nonetheless, personal and social development is a major area to which Outdoor 67 Educators could address themselves.

The justification within the curriculum exists at the highest levels.

For example, the 5-14 Personal and Social Development Guidelines state emphatically: Personal and Social Development is a fundamental aspect of the education of the whole child.

(Scottish Office Education Department, 1993, p. 1, their emphasis) The guidelines also allocate time.
For example, in the Scottish secondary school, time is to found from the 20% flexibility factor that exists in the curriculum (SCCC, 1989).

Furthermore, examples of practice citing Outdoor Education as a particularly appropriate method are given.

The curricular justification has been acknowledged at the highest levels of the education service.

The problem of implementation may be similar to the one identified by Peter Higgins in regard to Environmental Education.
There is no subject base for personal and social development.

Therefore, there may be no member of staff within a school with responsibility for delivering this area of the curriculum.
Evidence that there is a lack of concern within schools regarding their delivery of personal and social development programmes comes from Chris Woodhead (Young, 1997) who, in an attack on schools" pastoral care policies, has stated that “many personal and social development programmes are not particularly coherent.” Given the prominence of personal and social development within curriculum documents, it is legitimate to enquire at the highest levels whether the aims of personal and social development programmes within schools are being met.
It is then up to the Outdoor Educators to present a case for Outdoor Education as being an effective method of delivering (or partially delivering) schools" personal and social development programmes.

They also require to argue strongly for locating a broader base for the position of Outdoor Education rather than, as has been indicated, the present narrow base within Physical Education within the English National Curriculum.
THE ENVIRONMENT There was concern among respondents that the environment required more consideration.

One consideration could be to make an assessment of the environmental impact of outdoor programmes.

For example, it is arguable that inclusion of motor sports such as go-karting and quad biking 68 within an adventure education programme, such as is advertised by one commercial provider8, is harmful to the environment.
Secondly, an active consideration of how environmental awareness can be encouraged among students should be considered.

For example, Cooper (1994) has argued for an emotional or aesthetic approach, rather than a field studies approach, as being effective in generating environmental awareness among children.

LEARNING There were three main conclusions to be drawn.

Firstly, respondents attached importance to the learning opportunities afforded by Outdoor Education.
It will be recalled that four different learning strategies were described by respondents.

The conclusion to be drawn is that there are rich possibilities in the use of the outdoors to encourage students both to consider alternative ways of learning, and also to take responsibility for their own learning.

Secondly, the environment itself was identified as a factor in learning.

This is not to be confused with learning about the environment.
The learning is entirely due to the environment engendering some emotional engagement, or some informality, that brings about a lowering of barriers creating learning opportunities for students.

Thirdly, increased confidence developed through Outdoor Education was believed by respondents to lead to increased confidence in other learning situations.

Considerations as to how this may be achieved will be explored below under !A Note on the Self-concept" (p. 74).
CHANGES OF ATTITUDES THROUGH SHARING EXPERIENCES Teachers and students sharing experiences, or, alternatively, sharing a broad version of adventure, through the medium of a residential programme engendered increased understanding leading to improved relationships among staff and students.

The benefits of improved relationships were maintained for a considerable period of time, to the benefit of the school.

The crucial factor was the sharing of experiences.

8 PGL UK Adventure.
8 PGL UK Adventure.

69 TEACHING STYLES Eleven respondents were open to the view that flexible or progressive teaching styles ought to be adopted for the delivery of at least some parts of outdoor programmes.

This would suggest an openness to the possibility of adopting some of the strategies for improving students" orientations towards learning identified below in the implications drawn regarding !adventure".
THE INHERENT VALUE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION Respondents varied in the importance that they attached to the inherent value of Outdoor Education.

Many respondents, particularly the experts, strongly supported reviewing strategies as a way of drawing value and meaning from experiences.

For those respondents who considered that there was possible value in Outdoor Education as a relatively isolated experience, there was some support from the literature.

IMPLICATIONS OF RESPONDENTS!


CONCEPTIONS OF ADVENTURE Further Developed Conceptions of Adventure This section develops respondents" conceptions of adventure.

This will assist in the process of determining firstly, the values of the broad and narrow conceptions of adventure; secondly, examining some problems with the narrow conception of adventure; and thirdly, describing strategies for promoting an alternative, effort based view of the self-concept within Outdoor Education.
Briefly examining the broad view of adventure, it is noted that effort and responsibility are major dimensions.

Both of these dimensions have been identified in the Educational Psychology literature (Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Dweck, 1986) as having an important role in motivating students.

The role of these dimensions will be further explored.

First, however, it is necessary to complete the !missing" dimensions of the narrow conception of adventure.
Broad and narrow conceptions of adventure were distinguished in discussion of respondents" conceptions of adventure.

If we refer to Diagram 1 (on p. 36), it will be seen that the narrow conception of adventure is incomplete.

The two absent dimensions can be deduced by making a comparison with the equivalent dimensions of the broad conception.

The completed diagram is shown below as Diagram 3.
The new diagram has a different purpose from the earlier one which was 70 DIAGRAM 3 - DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NARROW AND BROAD CONCEPTIONS OF ADVENTURE NARROW VIEW BROAD VIEW OF OF ADVENTURE ADVENTURE SHORT TIME SCALE LONG TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIENCE HIGH THRILL MANY CHALLENGES CHALLENGES VARIED IN NATURE LITTLE OR NO SOME OR MUCH EFFORT INVOLVED EFFORT INVOLVED NO RESPONS- RESPONSIBILITIES IBILITIES DEVOLVED DEVOLVED TO TO STUDENTS STUDENTS designed to capture and present in an analytical fashion conceptions of respondents.
The current diagram is designed for the purpose of acting as a tool to reflect on Outdoor Education practice and to act as a “bridge” across to the Psychology literature.

As with any model, the goal of providing a clear explanatory framework necessarily involves some simplification of the complex picture that emerges when practice is examined in detail.

Ames!
Ames!

(1992) Review of Motivation Literature Turning to look at important implications of psychological studies of classroom learning for the field of Adventure (or Outdoor) Education, two points are to be made.

Firstly, these findings can inform practice within the field of Outdoor Education; and secondly, some dimensions of the practice of Adventure Education can transfer across to practice in the classroom.

Thus, there is potential for an integration of classroom and Outdoor Education approaches.
In order for the reader to gain the full benefit of these findings, a brief synopsis of Ames" (1992) summary of research on classroom motivation is required (with a focus on areas relevant to Outdoor Education).

71 It is accepted that classroom environments influence students" views about the nature and purposes of learning (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986).

It is thus possible to construct learning environments which influence students" orientations towards learning.
Ames (1992) distinguishes two major contrasting goals that students adopt towards learning.

Firstly, students may adopt a mastery goal towards learning.

This type of goal is associated with an orientation towards learning characterised by the belief that outcome (or achievement) and effort are directly related.

Associated orientations are a motivation to learn, attempts towards understanding work (rather than rote learning), and a desire to improve competence.
Secondly, students may adopt a performance goal towards learning.

This type of goal is associated with an orientation towards learning characterised by the belief that outcome (or achievement) and ability are directly related.

Associated orientations are viewing learning as a method of achieving !public" recognition coupled with a concern with feelings of self-worth.

Learning is more likely to be of a surface nature (Entwistle, 1994), with less focus on understanding and more on rote learning.
Further, because of the student"s concentration on the self-concept, expenditure of effort in achieving a learning goal is seen to threaten his/her self-concept.

This may happen because, if expenditure of effort does not lead to success, then the student"s ability is called into question.

Therefore, students who adopt a performance goal towards learning are reluctant to be seen to be involved in expenditure of effort.
Ames (1992) outlines three structures within the classroom affecting motivation or orientation towards mastery or performance learning.

These are firstly, classroom tasks, secondly evaluation and recognition and thirdly, authority.

Instructional strategies associated with these dimensions are described below.

Strategies identified here are intended to orientate the student towards a mastery (as opposed to a performance) orientation towards learning.

Tasks: novel or diverse; challenging.


Authority: students participating in decision making; making “real” choices where decisions are made on effort, not ability, requirements; developing responsibility and independence.

Evaluation and recognition: focusing on individual improvement; teacher making private evaluation (not public, which focuses on ability); recognising effort; encouraging the view that mistakes are part of learning.
72 The motivational patterns which are associated with the above instructional strategies are: Focus on effort and learning High intrinsic interest in activity Attributions to effort Attributions to effort-based strategies Use of effective learning and other self-regulatory strategies Active engagement Positive affect on high effort tasks Feelings of belongingness “Failure-tolerance” There is not space to examine the above patterns closely, but some links with the experiential theories described in the literature review will be discerned.
Implications from Motivational Research for Adventure Education There are three major implications to be drawn from motivational research.

Empirical Justifications for Progressive Teaching Approaches within Outdoor Education The first implication to draw is that the above perspectives have been authoritatively researched.

Extensive empirical evidence demonstrating that classroom structures (or teaching approaches) affect students" orientation to learning is referenced.
Because there has always been a lack of empirical evidence underpinning Outdoor Education or Experiential Education (Wichmann, 1995), this research evidence is particularly to be welcomed.
To support the notion that empirical evidence in the field of Experiential Education is limited, it is noteworthy that recent publications on Adventure (and Experiential) Education (Dyson, 1996; Wurdinger, 1995; Warren, Sakofs, Hunt, 1995) draw largely on thinking either from within the field of Experiential Education itself or from long established educational thinkers, such as Bruner, Dewey, Piaget and Rogers.
While the contributions of these long established thinkers is important, their theories have not gone unchallenged (Boden, 1979; Meadows, 1992).

Yet recent developments within the field of Educational Psychology offer much in the way of empirical evidence to support the progressive teaching approaches espoused by experiential (and outdoor) thinkers and also by 73 the great majority of the respondents of this study.
Therefore, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that Outdoor Educators should investigate modern research from the field of Educational Psychology in order to locate empirical evidence for the justification of their teaching approaches.

The Use of a Broad Conception of Adventure to Encourage a Mastery Orientation towards Learning The second implication is that as educators, we should be attempting to orientate students towards a mastery, rather than a performance, orientation towards learning.
We can attempt to do this in our teaching approaches by encouraging the use of a broad conception of adventure of the type described by the respondents in this study.

A brief consideration of both the dimensions of the broad conception in conjunction with Ames" (1992) strategies will show that there is much that can encourage students" towards a mastery orientation towards learning through the use of adventure.
Firstly and most importantly, students must be encouraged to consider an effort based strategy towards achievement of goals.

According to Ames (1992), a sense of student"s self-worth can be linked to his/her effort, rather than his/her performance.

As an example of the value of effort based approaches to the self-concept, it is notable that children who hold to an effort based view of the self-concept cope better with failure.
Dweck notes that: retraining children"s attribution to failure (teaching them to attribute their failures to effort or strategy instead of ability) has been shown to produce sizable changes in persistence in the face of failure, changes that persist over time and generalise across tasks.

(1986, p. 1046).

By adopting an effort based strategy towards achievement, students" theories that learning goals can only be attained through their ability are challenged.
This is facilitated by providing students with tasks which are challenging and novel, therefore stimulating students" interest.

Students should also be involved in decisionmaking and have responsibility devolved to them.

The broad conception of adventure is a powerful method of encouraging this approach to learning.

It is therefore arguable that there is a place for activities in Outdoor Education programmes where achievement depends on students" efforts.
An example of an activity where this is the case is hillwalking.9 In searching for a metaphor to demonstrate the usefulness of effort as a learning strategy, success in hillwalking can be employed.

Such activities requiring high effort are thus justified as a strategy in orientating students 9 The more complex example of the expedition could equally well have been chosen.

74 towards the adoption of mastery learning goals.


Processes of review and transfer can be used to assist in helping to change students" orientations.

It may be argued against the inclusion of high effort activities that some students do not like to expend effort.

However, strong justification could be provided for the position that the longterm gains that students can make from engaging in an activity, on occasion can and should outweigh students" immediate preferences.
One final caution should be offered.

Not all students respond well to adventurous activities, either in the outdoors or in the classroom.

These students who do not respond well may exhibit anxiety where they have perceptions of insufficient structure in the teaching approach (Entwistle, 1994).

Educators therefore require to assess these students" needs in determining their teaching approaches towards them.
Possible Problems with a Narrow Conception of Adventure The third implication from motivational research to be drawn is that when the narrow conception of adventure is examined, possible difficulties can be detected.

For example, if the narrow view of adventure leads students to focus on their ability to perform rather than their requirement to apply effort as a way of achieving tasks, then this may encourage a performance orientation towards learning.
This is not to say that high challenge, low effort activities are not worthwhile.

However, careful consideration of these programmes is indicated.

Public evaluations of performances by educators should not be over emphasised, (which may not be easy in high profile activities).

Success should not entirely be attributed to ability, but also to effort, (which again may not be easy).

Responsibilities should be devolved if possible towards students.

The inference of the above is clear.


If an outdoor programme is made up entirely of high thrill, low effort, short time scale activities with little responsibility devolved to children, then however much fun the programme may be and however much recreational value it may have, the educational value must be questioned.

Furthermore, if programmes develop performance orientation patterns among children, such programmes may even be counterproductive.
As some respondents in this study have suggested such programmes are more common now than in the past, then it is particularly important that the educational argument for programmes of this type is examined.

75 A Note on the Self-concept The improvement of students" self-concept is one of the major justifications of Outdoor Education programmes and was noted by a majority of respondents in this study.

Few would argue that this is a worthy aim.


However, it is the case that the self-concept is not generally well understood.

For example, one inference drawn from recent theory is that it is now no longer acceptable to hold to a unidimensional view of the self-concept (Fox and Corbin, 1989).

Yet depictions of the self-concept by educational establishments often treat this concept unproblematically.
A major justification for including high challenge activities as part of an outdoor programme is to increase students" self-esteem.

However, drawing on the above discussion, it would seem that outdoor educators should refrain from encouraging students to equate improving their self-esteem with their ability.

Rather, we should encourage students to perceive of themselves as being successful and competent through application of effort.
On a slightly different note, Rutter (1985) gives a powerful justification for designing programmes where student success is based on student autonomy where the outcome is improved self-image.

While his example is dated, the inference is clear.
He gave the example of institutionally reared girls who were significantly more likely to !plan" a good marriage where they had had good experiences and success at school “perhaps because their school success had given them a self-image of people who could control their own destinies” (1985, p. 363).
The implications from Rutter (1985) are clear; schools make a difference to students" life chances; it follows that the potential of good Outdoor Education or Outdoor Adventure programmes in helping to achieve these improvements for students is persuasive.

It is the case that such programmes are likely to be based on broad conceptions of adventure.
In considering the above both within Outdoor Education and in relation to benefiting classroom learning, rather than focusing on students" high performance successes, we should rather consider the application of effort and the devolution of responsibility in helping students to construct positive self-images.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS Firstly, and importantly: pointers have been made to highly relevant empirical justifications for Outdoor Education programmes of the type 76 espoused not only by some of the respondents, but also for the last twenty-five years in the literature.

This study has identified several areas of interest.
Because the focus has been on education in general, as well as Outdoor Education in particular, the identification of inventive approaches to learning by respondents has been particularly welcome.

The importance of a personal and social developmental role for students undergoing an Outdoor Education experience has been made by respondents.

That there is also an important learning role for Outdoor Education is now also made.
For example, it may also be possible to transfer (Gass, 1985; 1993) the concept of effort (or persistence) as a learning strategy.

Dweck (1986), for example, suggests that students who have learned persistence in the face of failure will generalise this attitude across tasks.

No one in this study had considered applying the transfer of persistence as a learning strategy, but these theoretical considerations suggest that it may be worth considering (Blumenfeld, 1992; Dweck, 1986).
There is no reason to believe that it may be any less successful as a learning strategy than attempts to improve the inadequately understood and much promoted self-concept.

Turning now to adventure, Dewey, in discussing education long before the rise of Adventure Education, provides us with a fusion between adventure and learning when he states that “all thinking involves a risk.

... the invasion of the unknown is in the nature of an adventure.” (Dewey, 1917, p.174).
Thus, when individuals participate in the most enlightened forms of Adventure Education, the adventure can be both a metaphor for learning, and also a learning experience in itself.

The potential, highlighted in this study, of the role of Adventure Education in promoting positive orientations towards learning is consistent with this enlightened approach.

Can adventurous learning approaches transfer across from Outdoor Education to the classroom?
Project Adventure is attempting to use such learning approaches in the United States (Dyson, 1996).

It is arguable that an Outdoor Education programme, concerned with students" approaches to learning, can offer much in a situation where there coexists a sympathetic school approach to learning.
It is certainly possible to offer challenging adventurous activities and to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning, as Glynn Roberts described in this study, encouraging a mastery orientation towards learning.

Finally, the importance of Outdoor Education in the UK was long taken for granted by outdoor educators.

In the last few years, there has been change in Outdoor Education, much of it being a reduction of provision.
In following others in broadening the discussion of Outdoor Education 77 beyond a limited skills conception, this study has attempted to demonstrate the enormous educational value of Outdoor Education.

It shows that not all education, in the broadest sense of the term, has to take place in the classroom.

By showing the commitment of the respondents to their role as educators, the study has also indicated the depth of feeling that respondents attach to the value of their provision.
The last word is left to Peter Higgins: the way in which I"ve changed is that I am increasingly ambitious for Outdoor Education at a time when we"re all fighting rearguard actions.

I believe we should be on the aggressive side, on the attack, and I believe we can argue for Outdoor Education programmes that can satisfy all sorts of specific developmental aims.

I believe passionately that we can argue that what we do is very, very valuable.
I believe that you can make a case for Outdoor Education so my own thinking has become much more ambitious than it was to start with.

78 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ames, C (1992) Classrooms: Goals, Structures and Student Motivation Journal of Educational Psychology 84 261-271.

Barrett and Greenaway (1995) Why Adventure?

A Review of Research Coventry: Foundation for Outdoor Adventure.
Blumenfeld, P (1992) Classroom Learning and Motivation: Clarifying and Expanding Goal Theory Journal of Educational Psychology 84 272-281.

Boden, M., (1979) Piaget Glasgow: Fontana.

Bogan, J.

(1988) The Assessment of Self-Esteem: A Cautionary note Australian Psychologist 23, 3 383-389.

Boot and Reynolds (1983) Learning and Experience in Formal Education Bournemouth: Direct Design.
Carver, R (1996) Theory for Practice: A framework for thinking about experiential education The Journal of Experiential Education 19, 1 8-13.

Cason, D. and Gillis, H. (1994) A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents The Journal of Experiential Education 17, 1 40-47.

Chapman, S. (1995) What is the Question?

In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of Experiential Education (pp.

236-239) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Chapman, S., McPhee, P., and Proudman, B.


(1995) What is Experiential Education?

In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of Experiential Education (pp.

235-236) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Cooper, G., (1994) The Role of Outdoor Education in Education for the 21st Century The Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 11 (2) 9-12.

Coopersmith (1967) The antecedents of Self-esteem Freeman.

Day, I.

(1993) Qualitative Data Analysis London: Routledge.
79 DeLay, R (1996) Forming Knowledge: Constructivist learning and experiential education The Journal of Experiential Education 19, 2 76-81.

Demo D.H. (1985) The Measurement of Self-esteem: Refining our Methods Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 48 6 1490-1502.

Dewey, J.

(1917) Democracy and Education New York: MacMillan.

Dewey, J.

(1938) Experience and Education New York: Collier Books.
Drever, E. (1995) Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research: A Teacher!s Guide Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Dweck, C (1986) Motivational Processes Affecting Learning American Psychologist 41 1040-1048.

Dyson, B.

(1996) Two physical education teachers!

experience of Project Adventure The Journal of Experiential Education 19, 2 90-97.

Entwistle, N. (1994) Styles of Learning and Teaching London: Fulton.

Finkenberg, M., Shows, D. and DiNucci, J.


(1994) Participation in Adventure-Based Activities and Self-Concepts of College Men and Women Perceptual and Motor Skills 78 1119-1122.

Fouhey, H., and Saltmarsh, J (1996) Outward Bound and community service learning: An experiment in connected knowing The Journal of Experiential Education 19, 2 82-89.

Fox, K.R.

and Corbin, C.B.


(1989) The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and Preliminary Validation Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11 408-430.

Fullan, Michael (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change New York: Teacher!s College Press.

Gass, M. (1985) Programming the Transfer of Learning in Adventure Education.

The Journal of Experiential Education 8, 3 18-24.


Gass, M. and Priest, S. (1993) Using Metaphors and Isomorphs to Transfer Learning in Adventure Education The Journal of 80 Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 10 (4) 18-23.

Greenaway, R. (1997) High Quality Adventure For All: What Does It Look Like?

Horizons 14 (2) 18-23.

Higgins, P. and Loynes, C. (1996) Towards Consensus on the Nature of Outdoor Education The Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 13 (4) 2-3.
Hopkins, D., and Putman, R. (1993) Personal Growth through Adventure London: Fulton.

Humberstone, B.

(1986) Outdoor Education - the Quality of the Learning Experience: an Application of the Ethnographic Research Method.

In Trends and Developments in Physical Education: proceedings of the VIII Commonwealth Conference on Sport, Physical Education, Dance, Recreation and Health (pp.

453-460).

Hunt, J.
453-460).

Hunt, J.

(1989) In Search of Adventure: A Study of Opportunities for Adventure and Challenge for Young People Bournemouth: Bourne Press.

James, T. (1995) Kurt Hahn and the Aims of Education In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of Experiential Education (pp.

33-43) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Keighley, P. (1997) The Impact of Experiences Out-of-Doors on Personal Development and Environmental Attitudes Horizons 14 (2) 27-29.
Kolb, D (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development London: Prentice-Hall International.

Knapp, C (1994) Progressivism never died- it just moved outside: What can experiential educations learn from the past?

The Journal of Experiential Education 17, 2 8-12.

Luckmann, C. (1996) Defining Experiential Education The Journal of Experiential Education 19, 1 6-7.

MacLeod, M., L., P. (1996) Practising Nursing - Becoming Experienced New York: Churchill Livingstone.
81 McPhee, P. (1995) Asking the Question In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of Experiential Education (pp.

239-240) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Marsh, H., Richards, G. and Barnes, J.

(1986) Multidimensional self- concepts: A long-term follow-up of the effect of participation in an Outward Bound program Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12, 4 475-492.

Meadows, S. (1992) Understanding Child Development London: Routledge.
Miles, J. and Priest, S. (1990) Adventure Education Venture Publishing.

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

Proudman, B.

(1992) Experiential Education as emotionally based learning.

The Journal of Experiential Education 15 2 19-23.

Royce, D (1987a) Outdoor Education - Aims and approaches: an inherent dilemma Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 4, 1 12-14.
Royce, D (1987b) Adventure Experience & Affective Learning: Where are we going?

Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 4, 2 12-14.

Royce, D (1987c) Why Outdoors?

Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership 4, 4 24-29.

Rutter, M (1985) Family and School Influences on Behavioural Development Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 26 349-368.

Scottish Office Education Department (1993) Personal and Social Development 5-14.

Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education Department.


Sakofs, M (1995) Piaget - A Psychological Rationale for Experiential Education.

In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of 82 Experiential Education (pp.

149-151) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Solas, J.

(1992) Investigating Teacher and Student Thinking About the Process of Teaching and Learning Using Autobiography and Repertory Grid The Review of Educational Research 62 2 205-225.

Warren, K., Sakofs, M. and Hunt, J.


(1995) The Theory of Experiential Education Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Wichmann, T. (1995) Babies and Bathwater: Two Experiential Heresies.

In K. Warren, M. Sakofs and J.

Hunt The Theory of Experiential Education (pp.

109-119) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Wurdinger, S. (1995) Philosophical Issues in Adventure Education Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Young, S. (1997) Woodhead attacks sloppy pastoral care Times Educational Supplement (Scotland) 14.3.97.
83 APPENDIX 1 BIOGRAPHIES OF RESPONDENTS PRACTITIONERS Introduction Five practitioners have a teaching qualification, although only Rory Stewart has a teaching qualification in the field of Outdoor Education.

Claire Patullo is qualified in Community Education.

She was also trained in Outdoor Education through Further Education.

All the practitioners have also acquired outdoor pursuits skills qualifications during the course of their careers.
Sue Gregory Sue Gregory has been involved for twenty-eight years as a teacher of Outdoor Education.

She spent four and a half years at Holyrood High School, an LEA Catholic School in Edinburgh.

She was initially teaching both Physical Education and Outdoor Education, which, after one year, became entirely Outdoor Education.
She spent five years as a peripatetic Outdoor Education teacher at the City Outdoor Pursuits Centre, a pioneering urban based local authority centre serving all the schools in Edinburgh.

For the last eighteen years, she has been at Drummond Community High School as assistant principal teacher of Outdoor Education.

She presently teaches Outdoor Education from first year to third year.
She is involved in school residentials, supported by other school staff, which are offered as an entitlement for all first to third year students.

The Duke of Edinburgh"s Award Scheme is offered to students from third year and upwards, involving about four expeditions per year.

As part of the community programme, she services a large adult group.

There is also a Fifty Plus Discovery Group, whose programme is based on the principles of the Duke of Edinburgh"s Award scheme.
Claire Patullo Claire Patullo first became involved in Outdoor Education thirteen years ago, when she undertook a course in Outdoor Education at Telford Further Education College in Edinburgh.

She then worked for a year in a girls" school offering the Duke of Edinburgh"s Award Scheme extra- 84 curricular Outdoor Education for one year.

After returning to college for one year, she worked in a private outdoor centre for part of year.
Two years later, she became a student of the Moray House College of Education Community Education course.

Since qualifying six years ago she has been involved in Outdoor Education.

For the last three years, she has been full time coordinator at the Craigmillar Adventure Project.

This Outdoor Education centre employs herself, one other full time worker and some volunteers.

The centre serves the community of Craigmillar, an inner city area where poverty affects a high proportion of the population.
She presently has responsibility for managing the centre, which works with youths and also, to a lesser extent, with adult groups.

She does some work with students at the local comprehensive, Castlebrae Community High School.

She has recently started work with one local primary school.

Alistair Seagroat Alastair Seagroat has been involved for twenty-five years as a teacher of Outdoor Education.

He spent six years at Dunoon Grammar, which is the single secondary school serving Dunoon in Argyllshire.
In his timetable, he taught half mathematics and half Outdoor Education.

He then spent thirteen years at Castlebrae High, which is an inner city comprehensive situated in the Craigmillar area in Edinburgh, teaching Outdoor Education on a full-time basis.

For the last six years, he has been based as a teacher of Outdoor Education at Prestonpans Outdoor centre, which employs three peripatetic Outdoor Education staff to serve the six secondary schools and associated primaries of East Lothian.
The centre also has a role both in community education and in giving advice for the East Lothian Education Department.

Chalmers Smith Chalmers Smith has been involved for eighteen years as an assistant principle teacher of Outdoor Education.

This has been spent at Newbattle High School, which is a comprehensive serving an former mining area in Midlothian.

He teaches first to third year, plus small numbers of fifth and sixth year.
He is presently the chair of the Lothian Association of Outdoor Education Staff.

85 Rory Stewart Rory Stewart has been involved for sixteen years as an instructor or a teacher of Outdoor Education.

In 1981, he began working as an instructor of Outdoor Pursuits, servicing local schools at an urban based centre in Sunderland.

He subsequently worked in a number of centres in North-East England and the Lake District.

From 1991 to 95, he worked on a free lance basis for the outdoor activities market.
Part of the way through his career, he enrolled as a student on the Post Graduate Certificate of Education course at Bangor in North Wales, qualifying in Outdoor Education.

Over the last few years, he has worked for Outward Bound, Scotland, near Fort William, as temporary instructor, permanent instructor and presently senior instructor.

He now has a programme coordinating and logistical role, although not a management role, in running the centre.
Cliff White Cliff White has been involved for twenty-one years as a principal teacher of Outdoor Education.

This has been passed entirely at Craigmount High School, which is a comprehensive serving a largely middle class area in Edinburgh.

He has been involved in teaching from first year through to sixth year.

He also has a limited experience of teaching within Community Education and within the private sector.

EXPERTS Peter Higgins Peter Higgins changed career from being a fish biologist.
He has now been instructing and teaching in Outdoor Education for twelve years.

Initially, he was employed at Benmore Outdoor Education Centre, a residential centre for school students situated in the mountains of the Cowall peninsula in Argyll.

He is presently Senior Lecturer in Outdoor Education at Moray House College of Education.

86 Chris Loynes Chris Loynes has been involved in Outdoor Education since first being employed as a teacher at the age of twenty.
He began teaching at about the time of the raising of the school leaving age (ROSLA).

During the ten years he spent at his first teaching post, he developed an Outdoor Education curriculum within the school, which had both in depth, where a small group of students had an intensive course, and breadth, where students across the school enjoyed an entitlement to some form of Outdoor Education.
He then move to Brathay, a charitable centre in the Lake District as the senior tutor for their youth development programme, which involved a wide range of client groups.

He is now self-employed in outdoor management development programmes and staff development, which trains others working in the outdoors.

He also writes, and is presently editor of The Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, the principal publication concerning Outdoor Education in the UK.
Ali Kellas Ali Kellas has been involved for twenty-two years within the field of Outdoor Education.

At the age of thirty, he became a student on a Post Graduate Certificate of Education involving Outdoor Education.

He has worked in the field ever since, always in LEA Outdoor Centres.

He now manages the centre of Derwenthill in the Lake District, which is owned by Sunderland Education Authority.
As the subsidy from the LEA dwindles to zero, he perceives his major current task as keeping quality high and costs low.

This is done in order to avoid excluding the majority of Sunderland"s school children from experiencing Outdoor Education.

Drew Michie Drew Michie trained in Physical Education from 1965 to 68.

He started teaching at St. Mungo"s, Alloa, a four year Catholic school in central Scotland.
He very quickly developed kayaking and hillwalking within the school ultimately culminating in Alpine expeditions.

In the 1970s, he was involved in developing Outdoor Education in the schools around Stirling, a development influenced by the pioneering work in Edinburgh"s urban based Outdoor Pursuits Centre.

In the late 1970s, based in Central Region, he was seconded as sports development officer.

An Outdoor Programme, including a commitment to pupil entitlement, was developed through this position.
87 In the late 1980s, he became involved with personal and social development, looking at attitudes, values and behaviours.

He developed, with Jordanhill College of Education, a management training course for headteachers using the outdoors.

This course was subsequently modified and used with school students.
In present post, as Advisor in Clackmannan, he is no longer directly involved in Outdoor Education, but is still running courses for Outdoor Pursuits skills development for staff and is actively looking at possible future Outdoor Education developments for Clackmannan.

Concurrent with his career in education, he has also been involved in two major Scottish Outdoor Pursuits Governing Bodies.
In the 1970s, he became chair of Scottish Canoe Association Coaching Committee and subsequently became chair of Scottish National Ski Council Coaching Committee.

In both of these positions, he has influenced teaching styles of instructors and teachers.

Roger Putman Roger Putman worked at Plas y Brenin in 1957 and Glenmore Lodge in 1958, which were the precursors to the National Outdoor Centres.
In 1962, after employment as a town planner, he worked as an instructor at Outward Bound, Eskdale, in the Lake District.

He became chief instructor and then principal in 1968, in which post he continued until 1988.

Since that time, he has compiled the Hunt report !In Search of Adventure" (1989), was chairman of the National Association for Outdoor Education, and first chair of the Outdoor Council.
Since 1988, he has been involved with the Foundation for Outdoor Adventure, a national independent research and education body.

He is co-author of the book !Personal Growth through Adventure" (1993).

Glynn Roberts Glynn Roberts has been involved for twenty-seven years as a teacher of Outdoor Education.

He began his teaching career in a school, developing an Outdoor Education programme within the urban setting of Birmingham.
He then went on to manage Birmingham Outdoor Education Centre, which is presently unique in the UK in the scale of the service it offers to schools as an urban based Outdoor Education centre.

The centre employs three teaching staff and a storeperson.

There is an advice role to schools and a provision of inservice training for teachers.

Glynn Roberts has also been involved in the development of National Curriculum projects.
88 APPENDIX 2 SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEWS PREAMBLE The purpose of this interview is an information gathering exercise on the thinking of some of those involved in the field of Outdoor Education.

I wish to explore the present thinking that underlines the actions (select) (EITHER) of those involved in positions of influence in the Outdoor Education world.

(OR) of practitioners of Outdoor Education presently working with school students.
In particular, I wish to explore the thinking which underlies your actions in the way that you teach or !deliver" (or approach) Outdoor Education.

The literature of Outdoor Education reveals a lack of consensus of definite ideas or aims in thinking about Outdoor Education.

Part of the idea of doing this research is to seek out common themes which may appear.
So let me be clear that in asking for information to which you may not have definite answers, or evidence, I am not attempting to reveal any shortcomings or make any judgments about the thinking of any one involved in Outdoor Education.

And if we contrast with conventional education, many of the kinds of areas I wish to ask you about are not thought about or discussed by many teachers in their own subjects in mainstream education If you are willing to be identified personally, that would be useful.
If you prefer to remain anonymous, then I will not divulge your identity, either in the dissertation or otherwise.

(NOTE preference regarding anonymity).

PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY/THINKING/PERCEPTIONS 1.

Please tell me how long you have been involved in Outdoor Education.

And then tell me something about what your present involvement in Outdoor Education is.

A kind of summary or overview would be fine.

PROMPT Does that cover the main areas of your involvement?

89 2.
89 2.

Do you think that there has been any changes in the thinking about Outdoor Education at large during the time you have been involved with Outdoor Education.

PROMPT Has there been any kind of !sea change", for example?

PROBE What do you think has driven these changes?

POINT This question does imply that there is a shared consensus about some of the aims or methods of Outdoor Education.

If you do not agree with this implication, we can go on to the next question.

3.
3.

In what way (if at all) has your own thinking about Outdoor Education changed since you began teaching Outdoor Education?

PROMPT Your methods of teaching Outdoor Education might have changed over this time, in light of personal experience.

4.

To what extent does educational theory (or thinking/ or philosophy/ or ideas) guide your present thinking about Outdoor Education?
PROMPT By educational theory, I mean thinking about Outdoor Education or education in general which has come from thinkers or writers, who may or may not be involved in Outdoor Education.

5.

There is a view that the experience of Outdoor Education is sufficiently powerful or valuable that the experience stands on its own.

What do you feel or think about this idea?

PROMPT For example, providing enjoyable experiences for students is a sufficient aim in itself.
PROMPT In contrast to making more exploratory links in other areas of personal development, education, in reviewing the experience, making connections.

PROBE The idea that the experience may be diminished (or enhanced) by an emphasis on analysing it.

90 ADVENTURE (INTRODUCTION) I am interested in exploring the concept of adventure for two reasons.

Firstly, I think that there are parallels with some mainstream learning and teaching styles.
Secondly, for many (by no means all) Outdoor Educationalists, !adventure" lies at the heart of their conception of what Outdoor Education is about.

Whether or not you agree with these reasons, I would like to know your thinking on the idea of adventure.

6.

What is your conception of !adventure"?


(brief overview) PROMPT 1 For many people, !adventure" carries with it associations of uncertainty of outcome, risk taking, not being directly supervised by a teacher, the devolution of responsibility to students.

PROMPT 2 Responsibility implies making decisions, being accountable for the consequences of actions.

An example of this approach could be young people planning a remotely supervised expedition.

7.
7.

How central is !adventure" to your thinking and practice of Outdoor Education?

8.

How do you !deliver" adventure to your students?

9.

How do your methods of teaching differ (if at all) from the way that you might like !adventure" to be !delivered".

PROMPT 1 What constraints are acting on you?

PROMPT 2 What would be your !ideal" approach?


VIEWS ON TEACHING STYLES (OR DELIVERY) OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION) (INTRODUCTION) I think that it is fair to state that there are two major possible approaches to the education of young people.

On the one hand, there is the so-called traditional approach which is associated with a teaching style where knowledge is handed on from teachers to students.

91 This assumes that education consists of a body of knowledge and skills to be passed on to the young.
On the other hand, the progressive approach is associated with student centred learning, where the student has more say over what s/he learns and how s/he learns it.

Progressive education also has associations with !discovery learning".

10.

We have covered some of this in discussing !adventure", but would you care to develop these ideas of different approaches in other areas of Outdoor Education that are familiar to you.
PROMPT 1 An example of the traditional approach in Outdoor Education could be teaching rope safety in rock climbing, which assumes a didactic style of teaching.

PROMPT 2 Non-hazardous Outdoor Education could include learning about orienteering, or field studies.

PROBE Do you lean to any preference of teaching style?

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (OTHER THAN AUTONOMY).

11.
11.

The Hunt study of 1989 suggested that Personal and Social Development was viewed as the major educational aim in the justification of the inclusion of Outdoor Education as part of the education of young people.

We have discussed autonomy, responsibility, etc.

What do you feel about the importance of some of the other aspects of personal and social development?

PROMPT This could include co-operation, concern for others, developing confidence.
PROBE What evidence do you have for personal change in students during or after an Outdoor Education experience?

PROBE Do you have any evidence for long term changes in students who have undergone an Outdoor Education experience.

TRANSFER.

92 12.

Do you have any thing to say on whether the experiences that students undergo in the Outdoors have any effect on classroom learning?

PROMPT Could the assumed benefits of Outdoor Education relate to classroom learning?

PROMPT e.g.
PROMPT e.g.

in motivation, or willingness to persist in learning?

PROMPT kinds of transfer (hoped for) PROBE how effective transfer is PROMPT To do with the school as an institution, relationships with staff.

PROBE Could you see any benefits in the way that students think about their own learning?

PROBE Could you see any benefits in changing students" attitudes in the classroom.

OUTDOOR EDUCATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY 13.
How do you see the aims/practice/relevance of Outdoor Education falling within the aims of school/national education curriculum guidelines provision generally?

(or not as the case may be).

PROMPT: For example, 5-14, Standard Grades, the National Curriculum (England).

ENVIRONMENT 14.

Do you have any comment on the environment and Outdoor Education?

FINAL QUESTION 15.

Is there any thing that you would wish to say about Outdoor Education which I haven"t touched upon?
93 NARROW VIEW OF ADVENTURE BROAD VIEW OF ADVENTURE SHORT TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE HIGH THRILL CHALLENGES LONG TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE MANY CHALLENGES VARIED IN NATURE SOME OR MUCH EFFORT INVOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES DEVOLVED TO STUDENTS DIAGRAM 1 - DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RESPONDENTS!
NARROW AND BROAD CONCEPTIONS OF ADVENTURE RELATIONSHIPS ENVIRONMENT NEW EXPERIENCES RESPONSIBILITY RELATIONSHIPS ENVIRONMENT NEW EXPERIENCES RESPONSIBILITY ADVENTURE 94 ADVENTURE OUTDOOR EDUCATION OUTDOOR EDUCATION AN EXAMPLE OF A FRAMEWORK OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN WHICH ADVENTURE IS OF A BROAD CONCEPTION ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL DIMENSIONS.

AN EXAMPLE OF A FRAMEWORK OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN WHICH ADVENTURE IS OF A NARROW CONCEPTION AND IS ONE OF SEVERAL DIMENSIONS.

DIAGRAM 2.
DIAGRAM 2.

EXAMPLES OF TWO OUTDOOR EDUCATION FRAMEWORKS WHERE STUDENTS ACHIEVE SIMILAR OUTCOMES NARROW VIEW OF ADVENTURE BROAD VIEW OF ADVENTURE SHORT TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE HIGH THRILL CHALLENGES LITTLE OR NO EFFORT INVOLVED NO RESPONS- IBILITIES DEVOLVED TO STUDENTS LONG TIME SCALE OF EXPERIENCE 95 MANY CHALLENGES VARIED IN NATURE SOME OR MUCH EFFORT INVOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES DEVOLVED TO STUDENTS DIAGRAM 3 - DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NARROW AND BROAD CONCEPTIONS OF ADVENTURE