Hi Roger and others
I think it is difficult to completely move the discourse beyond the
issue of measurement of outcomes. Measuring what it is that programs are
"doing" will probably always be an issue because of the range and
diversity of programs being offered - and their continual
development/change. Your analogy, Roger, using power, has one flaw in
that the measures used for these phenomena are often accepted as much
more objective and generalizable in physical terms than measures applied
to the study of human scenarios - the old natural sciences versus social
sciences distinctions.
Another issue may be that the actual scope (as opposed to scale) of the
"power" of the outdoor/adventure program is still in question. We know
that something powerful may be happening - exactly what this is, I
believe, is still questionable and may be very different for different
programs.
Your wish for us to move into the areas of program development and
design is surely not held back by more and deeper research into the
measurement of program outcomes, in fact both aspects should enhance one
another - being connected so closely in practical terms. I think that if
we left the outcomes questions as "answered" and built future resaerch
on these answers without further exploring them as time passes, we may
be making assumptions in our research that are not justifiable.
In essence I believe that we should be asking a very broad range of
questions, but that no questions are necessarily so well answered that
they cannot benefit from a new perspective.
(I think I may be interpreting your comments more liberally than you
intended them. I hope my response has not been too far off the mark of
your original intentions.)
John Quay
Roger Greenaway wrote:
> Here is a clarification of one of the issues I raised a couple of
> weeks ago. I would be interested in exploring with you through
> outres ...
>
> With the combination of outdoor adventure, developmental
> group and skilled facilitation it would be very surprising if
> outdoor adventure programmes/courses did NOT have a powerful
> impact. The overwhelming power that we can tap into through such
> a dynamic mix is surely not in question? Its capacity for power
> generation must surely be beyond dispute. Could our research
> efforts not now turn more towards programme development and ways
> of harnessing this power more effectively?
>
> To continue the analogy, it has long been recognised that wind,
> solar and wave power can be transformed into electric power.
> Research in the alternative energy field has focused on
> developing more effective ways of harnessing and transforming
> these alternative sources of power rather than measuring or
> marketing them.
>
> In the empowerment/education/training of people it is surely well
> established that stimulating environments, stimulating activities
> and stimulating people (supportive peer groups and inspiring
> teachers) are all useful things to have around. Do we really need
> to check this again before moving on to more thought-provoking
> and useful questions?
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
>
> P.S. For students and lifelong learners with a big appetite:
> Experiential Learning Theory Bibliography 1971-2001
> A comprehensive web page by Alice and David Kolb
> They have reached 1120 entries and are still looking for more!
> http://trgmcber.haygroup.com/Products/learning/bibliography.htm
|