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.
