Objective Testing in Soft Skills Facilitation

My final blog portrays my personal philosophy’s towards objective testing in outdoor education facilitation.

‘We don’t need independent research to prove the value of outdoor education, we believe in it.’  McDonald (1997).

I side with McDonald (1997). I believe that intervention programs influence people in different ways. Outdoor education benefits people by putting them in unfamiliar environments (Hanna, 1991). This allows individuals to respond by overcoming any fears and encouraging personal development (Brown, 2008).  People react differently to different situations, groups and activities, so measuring people within a specific outcome measures would appear to limit their recorded success.

Whilst I appreciate that centres need to justify the effectiveness of their programs with the results of intervention programs I feel like there are more beneficial ways of doing so, for example through qualitative research. Though meta-analysis like Hattie, Marsh, Neill, Richards (1997) has been hugely beneficial research within outdoor education in showing personal growth and the effectiveness of intervention programs. I feel that they only measure a small selection of traits in development. 

The biggest issue with the instrument tools like the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (2003), The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967)  and The 16 Personality Factor (Catterell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970) is that individual have to self-report and may feel as though  they ‘need to please’ the facilitator which invalidates results. If they are to be used successfully then other perspectives (for example parents, friends or teachers) should be collected and compared, to give more accurate results. 

Qualitative research would be an effective (but time consuming) way of reviewing progress individuals can be more honest if the individual is talking to the (known) facilitator. Evidence can then be taken from these in the sample of quotes which I personally feel, holds more substantial results than a meta-analysis of a questionnaire.

In summary I feel as though some facilitators become fixated on the results of the outcome measures rather than the needs of the client. If researchers want to obtain accurate data they should use both quantitative and qualitative research to ensure reliable and valid results. 

Reference

- Brown, M. (2008). Comfort zone: Model or metaphor. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 12(1), 3-12.

   -Hanna, G. (1991). Outdoor pursuits programming: Legal liability and risk management. University of Alberta.

   -Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of educational research, 67(1), 43-87.

       Further Reading

·         Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (2003). The Life Effectiveness Questionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.

Theories and Concepts

Self-esteem is described by the Oxford Dictionary (2011) as, “confidence in one’s own worth or ability: self-respect.

James & William (1890) made two critical point which have shaped the way we think about self-esteem:

             1.    Global self-esteem is both a state and a trait

             2.    Self-esteem rises and falls with achievement and setbacks

He concluded by stating “our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do”.

He raises two fundamental points as self-esteem is unstable. However people who have low self-esteem will be limited in their achievements and will required external resources to boost their self-esteem until they are capable to do it for themselves.

Figure 1 Adapted Dynamic Adventure Environment model. Garratt & Greenaway (1995).

Baratt & Greenaway (1995) created the Dynamic Adventure Environment model. This model provides five fundamental components for facilitators to follow which, when used together create a more power learning environment.  It is used a framework for developing understanding of risk, readership and the needs of a supportive group (Bunyan, 2011). A limiting factor is that the each component is equal the others which demonstrates how this 'environment' can fluctuate depending on activity, group and environment.  This model can be used as a framework for intuitive facilitators in order for their sessions to reach their full potential, by meeting the requirement of the participants needs.

An adventure environment is good for enhancing self-esteem because it offers a non-competitive way of achieving, whilst being physically active. It also offers participants opportunities to put ideas forward without being told that they are wrong which should enhance self-worth and self-esteem.

So therefore in my own opinion to enhance self-esteem in groups, individuals should be given a role and responsibilities within activities so everybody is able to participate and get a sense of achievement at the end of a sessions. Although for the facilitator to hand out these roles and responsibilities he/she needs to understand where there strengths and weaknesses lie in order for the most beneficial responses. This can be done by completing a self-esteem questionnaire or by listing three strengths and three areas of improvement.  Facilitators should aim for all participants to leave the session feeling a sense of achievement.

References

-Barrett, J., & Greenaway, R. (1995). Why adventure. The role and value of outdoor adventure in young people’s personal and social development: Summary of a review of research. Coventry, England: Foundation for Outdoor Adventure.

-  Bunyan, P. (2011). Models and milestones in adventure education. In: Adventure education: an introduction. (edited by C. Hodgson, & M. Berry) pp.5-23. Taylor & Francis.

-James & William, (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Copied, with permission, from The Principles of Psychology.

-Oxford Dictionaries. (2011). Colour Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.

Further Readings

-Fox, K.R., & Corbin, C.B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and preliminary evaluation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408–430.

-Bernet, Christine Z., Rick E. Ingram, and Brenda R. Johnson, (1993). Self-esteem, in (Ed.) Charles G. Costello, Symptoms of Depression. New York: Wiley.

Experiential Education

Experiential education in its simplest, most direct terms is learning through a direct experience rather than being informed by teachers or facilitators (Waite & Waite, 2011).  Experiential learning however includes informal learning which is learning through reflection on everyday experiences (Neill, 2004).

An environmental education facilitator’s role is to organise and facilitate direct experiences under the assumption this will lead to meaningful and long lasting learning (Allison, 2003). To maximise the opportunity of independent learning it is there duty to establish a trusting and supportive relationship with the pupils to ease anxiety. Martin (2002) states that it is vital that pupils feel safe and secure to initiate learning and development.

Dewey and Kolbs model highlight the importance of reflection within experiential learning. In my experience within a P.E department reflection/ evaluation is a process that is often missed at the end of a lesson usually due to lack of time. I personally believe that reviewing is a critical component of every lesson as it makes pupils aware of what they have learnt or the point of an activity. During a review it is important that the teacher/ facilitator asks specific questions from the lesson to get specific answers from the pupils. 

Although Kolb and Fry’s (1975) model is frequently used there is limited research to show its effectiveness. I personally appreciate the simplicity of this three stage model by Neill (2004) (Fig 1), it both easy to follow and easy explain to groups.  It is a consistent model as pupils will usually throw themselves straight into an activity with little thought this model remonstrates that they would then review the situation plan how to complete the activity efficiently and do it again.

                      Figure 1: Do, Review, Plan- A three stage experimental education                                             model Neill, 2004

 In my experience I have seen teachers run great lessons inside where they are able to take a step back and allow the pupils to learn experientially. However as soon as the environment has changed and they (the teacher) do not feel as comfortable doing the lesson in that as there are more risks and uncertainties this is when I have seen teachers struggle to take a step back and allow the pupils to try and complete the task. In this situation it is crucial to offer support, as and when they need it, and ask questions appropriate to the activity to help maintain concentration.

 Reference 

      -Allison, P. (2003). Key principles: Trust, risk and learning. In S. Wurdinger & J. Steffan (Eds.). --Developing challenge course programs for schools (pp. 17–29). Iowa: Kendall Hunt.

·        -Kolb, D. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. In Cooper, C. (1975) Theory of Group Processes. New York. John Wiley and sons.

·       -  Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1), 139-156.

·       - Neill, J. (2004) Experiential Learning Cycles: Overview of 9 Experiential Learning Cycle 
    Models, available from http://wilderdom.com/experiential/elc/experientialLearningCycle.
htm [accessed 8th April 2014].

·         -Waite, S., & Waite, S. (Eds.). (2011). Children learning outside the classroom: From birth to eleven. Sage Publications.

Further Readings

     - Gass, M. A. (1993). Adventure therapy. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company

     - Itin, C. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91-98.

      -Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), 17-20.

As facilitators who do we think we are deciding how far we will ‘stretch’ someone in their comfort zone?

Nadler (1993) and Kimball and Bacon (1993) both believe that unfamiliar environments contribute to program outcomes within the Adventure Sector because they create a level of anxiety and perception of risk to the participants. Children either rise to the challenge and leave the lesson/session wanting more or are put off and do not want to do it again because they have been stretched too far out of their ‘comfort zone’. This can result in harmful effects in self-esteem in both the short and long term (Kahn, 1997).

 Figure 1. Comfort Zone Model
Adapted from
Pannicucci (2007) 

Brown (2008) presents a convincing argument that the comfort zone model should in fact be changed to a metaphor so it can be used as an evaluation tool after a lesson. This will allow participants to see where they were within the model. Davis-Berman and Berman (2002) argue that most growth occurs when the learner feels safe and secure so this contradicts Piaget’s  (1977) comfort zone model. Martin (2005) found that relationships with nature are more likely to develop when the participants feel a sense of comfort and competence. Effective learning depends on solid foundations and relationships of trust and support between learners, and teachers and learners (Vella, 2002). I have seen this happen specifically in a Year 5 caving lesson some pupils see this activity and begin panic. For the pupils who are willing to try the activity they are coached through it by their friends helping them remain calm.

In relation to McKenizie’s (2000) research on how outcomes are achieved, I believe that if the individuals are in a cohesive group it doesn’t matter what the activity is or where they are as a group everyone will support one another to succeed and all have a pleasurable and memorable experience. Facilitators need to remember to ‘treat everyone the same, but differently’. Everyone responds differently.

References/ Further Reading

• Brown, M. (2008). Comfort zone: Model or metaphor. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 12(1), 3-12.
• Davis-Berman, J., & Berman, D. (2002). Risk and anxiety in adventure programming. Journal of Experiential Education, 25(2), 305-310.
•  Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, 1-61.
• Kimball, R. O., & Bacon, S. B. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In M. A. Gass (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 11-41). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
•   Martin, P. (2005). Human to nature relationship through outdoor education. In T. Dickson, T. Gray & B. Hayllar (Eds.), Outdoor and experiential learning: Views from the top (pp. 28-52). Otago, New Zealand: Otago University Press. 7.
• McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved?: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,5(1).
• Nadler, R. S. (1993). Therapeutic process of change. In M. A. Gass (Ed.) Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 57-69). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
• Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York: Viking Press.
•  Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.