Pete A. wrote:
> My concern is
> where people expect adventure education and get adventure
programming
> (assuming that they can tell and know the difference?). Has
adventure
> education been programmed by the culture of fear? Have we lost
our courage
> to take risks?

Both 'adventure programming' and 'development training' are
contradictory terms - with one 'open' word (adventure or
development) and one 'closed' word (programming or training). The
movement to and fro between 'open' and 'closed' is the rhythm of
learning that is represented in many learning models (e.g. Kelly:
loose/tight, Lewin: unfreeze, freeze). So it is, perhaps, quite
helpful using terms for our work that remind us of the
dynamic/tension/rhythm in learning.

When the 'closed' terms ('programming' and 'training') dominate
our attention, the whole process of learning suffers - with
loosening/unfreezing invaded and overwhelmed by premature
tightening/freezing.

Much evaluation research seems to be about finding and measuring
lumps of ice in a 'freeze frame' near the end of a programme and
then seeing how long it takes to melt. Such research pays too
much attention to the 'closed' part of the rhythm of learning,
and the choice of research question typically results in
witnessing a slow death (melting ice) rather than looking out for
growing signs of life (greater empowerment).

Pete mentions the importance of 'ownership' in learning and
development. He mentions a part of the Award Scheme that is now
known as exploration (a very 'open' term!). It seems that (in
this case) the language is becoming more open, but the reality is
becoming more closed.

Research that focuses on what learners actually experience (both
during and after their outdoor 'openings') will help us to
understand more about the rhythms of learning and dynamics of
growth that happen during and after outdoor adventure programmes.

We cannot assume that something called 'programming' is
experienced as 'closed', any more than we can assume that
something called 'exploration' is experienced as 'open'.

We might be less confused (and less confusing to others) if we
pay more attention to the language of learners - whether in our
practice or in our research. Even little cues about the changing
frequency of words can herald significant change e.g. indicating
ownership (they - we - I), empowerment (can't - can), outlook
(rubbish - cool - magic), time horizon (was - is - will). But it
is how these words are put together in sentences and stories that
provide even better clues about the learning and change that is
happening. The value of such stories is that they can capture the
whole of the process - the evolving and continuing rhythm of
learning and growth.

Is anyone engaged in this kind of research?

Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
[log in to unmask]
http://reviewing.co.uk