|
One of the problems facing us is that we do not know which of the dynamic
factors are important and in what ways they act as antecedents to events.
Our research is therefore by nature interpretive, we will never get
definitive answers only support for our intuitive feelings. Lets be
realistic about research in our area, I am not saying that we do partake in
it, just be realistic about what can be done, transferred and above all
educate professionals to consider research using an appropriate framework.
Pete.
Adventure Education
Degree Co-ordinator
University College Chichester
College Lane
Chichester PO19 4PE
01243 816317.
Fax 01243 816080
>>> James Neill <[log in to unmask]> 15-Dec-00 10:42:31 am >>>
Roger, John, Jim & others,
In my mind, the questions being asked are here are the right questions and
are critical and central to the development of outdoor education in the
21st century.
Whilst practitioners who have worked in the field, myself included, are
mostly quite satisfied that outdoor education has the potential to have
desirable effects such as enhancement of human functioning, this has by no
means yet been demonstrated in a manner which is as convincing as is the
case through other forms of human intervention experience such as
psychotherapy, innovative classroom education, etc. On the positive side,
in recent years several meta-analyses in our field have helped to collate
and confirm that, on average according to available published research,
outdoor education programs have small-moderate effects on, largely,
self-perceived qualities. This compares favourably (i.e. equivalently) to
class-room based interventions. There is relatively little followup
evidence available and this would seem to suggest that the gains may well
be retained and possibly even enhanced further. On the negative side, much
of the available research suffers from many significant flaws (e.g. small
sample sizes, few control groups, poor validity of outcome measures, and a
lack of sufficient description/coding of program processes, including
instructor techniques, etc.). The average findings should not give false
comfort. There are many programs which are not evaluated and to which
these general conclusions cannot be generalised. There are also many
findings of negative outcomes. There is evidence that approximately 20% of
participants actually report negative outcomes (based on my thesis data of
approx. 5000 participants in outdoor education programs). When I
communicate about outdoor education outcomes to the general and academic
public my message about outcomes is "this medium has the potential to
powerfully develop participants....on average the outcomes are
small-moderate, with evidence of some very impressive programs and other
programs which have reasonable programs, and still other programs with very
few positive outcomes or even negative effects".
Having said that, the way forward, I believe for research is simultaneous
measurement of processes and outcomes. It is not a case of saying righto
we enough enough outcomes,lets do process research. That's tossing the
baby out with the bathwater. Think of the experiential learning principles
(DO-REVIEW-PLAN, etc.) and apply them professionally via closer integration
between research and pracice to make our profession excellent and well
respected as a legitimate and powerful intervention approach. Thus, we
need more organisations to build in educational auditing of outcomes and
processes in conjunction with universities and consultant researchers who
can help the whole field by pooling together and reviewing the diverse
pockets of action research occuring around the world. Outcomes can then be
used to inform processes, and improved processes can then be developed to
enhance utcomes. Such processes carefully and inspirationally applied, I
believe can take outdoor education from a field on the fringe of seriously
considered intervention approaches to a mainstream technique during the
21st century.
Cheers,
James
At 02:33 PM 15/12/00, you wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>I agree with parts of what Roger and John say. Yes, outdoor programs can
>be powerful. Yes, we need more focus on the characteristics of the
>programs that make them more effective. It is a complicated web of
>participant and program (setting, instructor, group) characteristics that
>make programs powerful.
>
>However, one thing I have often wondered was how our programs compare to
>other alternatives. For instance, a student who CHOOSES to go on an
>outdoor program instead of the one that CHOOSES to take the course tuition
>money and travel independently or use it to take a course at the local
>community college may gain more from the outdoor experience. However, we
>will never know. And then their is the issue of adventure therapy where
>choice does not enter the equation. I often feel like we are stuck on
>outcome research that says "this program has an impact" instead of
>"this program can be more impactful than X alternative," or, as Roger
>suggested, "this is what can be done to make more impact." Realizing that
>"impact" is pretty vague...
>
>I merely post this for thought since I realize the challenges we face in
>measuring both the outcomes and processes behind adventure...
>
>Cheers -Jim
>
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, John Quay wrote:
>
> > 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 research
> > 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
> >
>
>------------------------------------------
>Jim Sibthorp, Ph.D.
>North Carolina State University
>Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
>4008 Biltmore
>Raleigh, NC 27695
-------------------------------
James Neill
Centre for Applied Psychology
University of Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6201 5405; fax; 61 2 6201 5753
email: [log in to unmask]
"University of Canberra--30 Years Making The Difference"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The touchstone of knowledge is the ability to teach."
- Auctoritates Aristotelis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
