Hi outres,
Jay and John are both using the term 'experience' in a way that makes
sense to me, whereas the AEE definition uses 'experience' in a way
that has so many built-in assumptions (eg that is totally
predictable, can be 'set', will be the same for everyone) that it is
difficult to have any meaningful discussion about experience if we
follow AEE usage - and I suspect that a lot of people do follow AEE
usage because their definition (now 'principles') has been around for so long.
Jay's account of 'neo-experientialism' provide a possible explanation
for what is happening: 'In this variation, experience becomes
something technical and instrumental. It is tightly bounded (in both
time and space), rationally constructed and efficiently controlled.'
(And I think that the term 'experiential programming' also fits with
this 'variation'.)
As the author of 'More Than Activities' I readily agree with John
that 'We are engaging the participants not just in "activities"' and
that in our planning we are anticipating what might happen and what
might be experienced.
So I think it is dangerous to use words or phrases that are handy
short-cuts for describing an interactive and unpredictable process -
especially when these short-cuts read as if they have dropped
straight out of the didactic paradigm and the only change is that we
have substituted 'experience' for 'information'. If we present
experience as being highly manageable, programmable and deliverable
we might deceive ourselves and others into the misconception that not
only can we pour information from a jug to mug, but we can do the
same with experience.
I think that until we clarify the meaning (or acceptable range of
meaning) for basic terms in our vocabulary of EE/OAE it is difficult
to make sense to each other. Beyond such clarification things get
much more interesting. For example, I would run a mile (at least)
from any provider offering 'total prediction' or proudly showing me
the results of controlled experiments demonstrating the
predictability of what they offered. I would politely tell them I was
looking for a provider of adventure education.
Jayson writes: 'when it comes to education, it is hard to fathom any
kind of situation that isn't 'carefully chosen' yet still wants to be
effective'. If 'careful choosing' were to be my primary guide, I do
not think that way of thinking would lead me to adventure. Yes,
Jayson, I may not be totally aware of how I am influencing what other
people experience, but, as you point out, there are so many
influences shaping experience (historical, cultural, situational and
more) that I strongly suspect that experiential educators overrate
how much influence they have over experience, and try too hard to
increase that influence. Whereas if they really valued experience
(and adventure) they might be a little less inclined to use words
such as setting, structuring and 'carefully choosing'.
Experience is at the heart of EE/OAE. Jay (disapprovingly) describes
a style of working in which there is minimal information coming back
to the educator (mumblings of 'trust' and 'communication' and not
much else). It is frightening to me (if this story is at all
representative) that there are experiential educators out there who
have no idea what learners are experiencing and are simply checking
that their programming is 'on message'.
still curious,
Roger
Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
<http://reviewing.co.uk>
|