An empirical look at Walsh and Golins' adventure education process model: relationships between antecedent factors, perceptions of characteristics of an adventure education experience, and changes in self-efficacy.

Adventure-based and outdoor experiential programs remain popular for recreational, developmental, and therapeutic uses. Adventure based programs are used in schools, community programs, camps, and corporate settings around the globe. The abundance of affirmative research and evaluation findings supports the notion that these programs have the potential to enact change in participants and groups among a variety of populations and a number of environmental settings (e.g., Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997; Hans, 2000; Cason & Gillis, 1994). While the preponderance of positive research findings indicates that development (e.g., increases in self-esteem, self-efficacy, trust, group cohesion) through adventure based programs is possible, how and why this development occurs remains less clear. Given the breadth of adventure applications, and the abundance of outcome-based research, it is critical to the continued success of the field that closer examination is afforded to the process behind adventure education and to the identification of specific programmatic and design components that are most critical to fostering developmental outcomes. While many have called for such research (Ewert, 1989; Hanna, 1992; Hattie, et al., 1997; Henderson & Fox, 1994; Kelley, Coursey, & Selby, 1997; Klint, 1999; Scherl 1990; Warner, 1999), few quality studies are available to guide practice, and programming decisions remain largely an enigmatic process based on gut instinct, past experience, and borrowed or untested philosophical understanding or belief. A cadre of philosophers and theoreticians have offered models of the adventure process (e.g., Kiewa, 1994; Luckner & Nadler, 1997; Walsh & Golins, 1976), some of which are largely accepted as doctrine within the industry. For example, the Walsh and Golins model includes a motivated (a) learner or program participant being placed into a prescribed (b) social and (c) physical environment where he or she masters specific (d) problem solving tasks. The course (e) instructor acts as a guide to ensure that the tasks are both authentic and manageable and provides the necessary feedback to aid mastery, which, in turn, leads to participant development (e.g., an increase in self-esteem).' While some readers may argue that this model is atheoretical, it has resonated with practice, a fact to which longevity and popularity attest; it is difficult to find a text on adventure-based programs without the Walsh and Golins citation (e.g., Ewert, 1989; Miles & Priest, 1999; Priest & Gass, 1997). While it is widely accepted that the (a) individual, the (b) social environment, the (c) physical environment, the (d) task structure, and the course (e) instructor are critical to participant development, the interrelationships between these areas remains poorly documented by empirical studies. Research that has addressed the process and programmatic factors related to developmental outcomes has identified several potential areas warranting further investigation. This study focuses on two of these areas: antecedent variables and characteristics of the experience. Antecedent variables are those that the participants bring with them into the program; examples include age, gender, expectations, motivations, past experience, and preexisting beliefs. The characteristics of the experience are the emergent perceptions during the program; examples include perceptions of the social environment, the level of instructor support, and how empowered the students feel during a program. How important these areas are to a program's developmental goals remains largely unknown. While it is commonly believed that programs can be designed for specific goals and objectives, it is possible that each program is too distinctive in nature to offer useful generalizations. Perhaps it is the unique mix of personalities and group specific experiences that enhance or diminish the effectiveness of any given program. …