Like Bill I have read, and agree with, much of Gary Thomas’ thinking on theory. I once worked with Gary at Oxford Brookes University and when he left to move to a Chair in Education at Leeds, the Dean of our Faculty made a humorous point about Gary being the only Reader he knew who had never visited the Faculty Library. Of course, this was an exaggeration; but it was indicative of Gary’s objection to the [over] use of theory.
Who benefits mostly from theories and models, I wonder? Might it be learners…or their teachers?
My 20 years teaching in school [ following 15 as a pupil and student] and, more recently my 8 years in Higher Education spent thinking about learning – indoors and out – lead me to believe strongly in one thing; what teachers teach and what learners learn are often very different things. I don’t think that is always a bad thing.
So, may I add to this fascinating debate about models – linear, cyclical, maze-like – the following question:-
Might our community make use of Deluze’s concept of the "rhizome" as a model for outdoor learning; as this may allow for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points? This may better describe outdoor learning than outdoor ‘teaching’, ‘instruction’ or ‘facilitation’? There is also the concept of learning trajectories [ lines of flight] within such – non-linear thinking - which may fit with Chris’ point about the journeying metaphor.
Tony Rea
PhD student
Faculty of Education
University of Plymouth
Faculty of Education
Rolle Building
Drake Circus
Plymouth
PL4 8AA
________________________________
From: Outdoor and adventure education research [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of W Krouwel [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 September 2010 15:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the future of linear process models in outdoor learning
Jay and all,
I too oscillate between finding the "quest for certainty" tiring and necessary/fascinating... and really like keeping my mind open for the serendipitous things that emerge on the quest...
That quest is, perhaps, also a means for helping us to constantly re-evaluate what we're doing, the models we use, the way we use 'em and so forth. Perhaps t also leads to occasional a-ha!!! moments of illumination, a la Feyerabend...
Best wishes
|Bill K
>>> roberja <[log in to unmask]> 9/6/2010 2:45 pm >>>
All:
This may connect back to a previous thread on this list but I can't exactly recall... many of us (myself included) have used the term "outdoor learning" or as Jayson says below "learning [that] occurs in outdoor settings." I wonder, are we making claims here that learning is somehow different in outdoor settings? Certainly Kolb's model was not intended to be so focused. Dewey, as well, was not speaking really at all about outdoor learning. And, of course, lots of us practice these forms of pedagogy "inside" as well. If we are not saying that learning "outdoors" is somehow distinct, what is the distinctive here? Are we just then talking about learning in general? Or, are we back to the enigmatic "experiential learning"?
There are days when I find this "quest for certainty" on terms (borrowed from Dewey) tiresome, but there are other days when I really feel as though it cuts to the core of the kind of practice many of us do and, as a result, it's worth digging in and trying to come with some clarity about the learning phenomena in which we research/teach/practice.
My Monday morning not-yet-with-coffee two cents,
Jay
On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Seaman, Jayson wrote:
Hi all:
Thanks for the continued discussion. It is great to see some activity on this list!
The article I wrote called “The end of the learning cycles era” should tip off anybody wondering how I feel about Kolb’s cycle. I have not taught it in years nor do I think at all in its terms, and my students still seem able to grasp core ideas pertaining to so-called experiential learning, and they have no problem reflecting themselves. Other colleagues of mine do teach it, and I am glad, because I think it is good for students to get different perspectives. Plus, Kolb’s model has so deeply influenced the fields of outdoor/adventure/experiential education that to not teach it would be a bad idea. And, as many of you have been saying, it has some utility in terms of introducing people to one rationale for organizing practice as we historically have. The danger for me is that people seem to be using it in research as a satisfactory explanation (or even a gloss) on how learning occurs in outdoor settings, and this simply is not true per se, even though it is true that the model largely constitutes our thinking about it.
This said, I do use a linear model—Walsh and Golins’ Outward Bound Process Model—for my theory of adventure education class. I do not ‘teach’ it exactly, as use it as a frame for laying bare our assumptions about adventure education, which, unless we can model them somehow, are just as likely to go unrecognized as examined critically. Then I spend the whole semester digging into more robust theories that help gain insight into each of the W&G boxes (i.e., how have people theorized ‘the motivated learner,’ a ‘unique social environment,’ etc.).
So yes, it is hard to disagree that there is a purpose for models. The issue for me is, when we mistake them for theories in our research and insulate ourselves from broader scholarship on adventure, human experiencing, and learning. I also think it is a little dangerously relativistic to say “well, they all have some purpose somewhere.” When have they outlived their usefulness? When do their limitations outstrip their benefits? When should we finally retire them? The relativistic position gives no way to respond to these questions, and it undermines real critique. Lastly, it is useful to know where they came from – Kolb’s in particular was never designed to model learning in youth-focused adventure settings, and James Coleman’s ideas grew out of assessment practices in the 1960s and 70s. Yet these are routinely used in other, or more general, ways. So there is the very real question of what they were intended to model in the first place, and whether they translate into other settings/uses/populations. I don’t think this has really been explored in OEA. Has it?
--
With regards,
Jayson Seaman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator
Department of Kinesiology, Outdoor Education Option
UNH NH Hall 202
124 Main St.
Durham, NH 03824
603-862-1162
On the web: http://www.chhs.unh.edu/kin_oe/
________________________________
From: Karel Hilversum <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Karel Hilversum <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 09:37:56 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: the future of linear process models in outdoor learning
From: Karel Hilversum <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: the future of linear process models in outdoor learning
To: Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>>
Roger, Jay and All
Really nice thread. One more angle, some may look for models to advance and more comprehensively explain the complexity of the human experience. But some (myself included) use models to expose non-researchers to the power and beauty of the experiential learning process. One of my aims an educator is to provide opportunities for self and collective awareness through experiences. In this regard, I have found that having different models to help explain the same process is very valuable. I will use a model if it will relate to the student's experience and assists her in achieving awareness. Maybe I'll use a different model for the same purpose but for a different population. I do think that models and theories will be valid only if they hold themselves true against a constant changing reality. It is a very dynamic way of learning. So maybe Kolb's cycle can be openly critiqued, but in the meantime it sure provides a powerful means for reaching awareness in students.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]<about:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi outres,
Thanks for some thought provoking replies - that make me even more interested in pursuing this line of questioning.
It is not really about creating a new model - although it is arguable that criticising a model is a creative act (much like the demolition company with the strapline 'creating new horizons' - that made me smile on a long motorway journey).
On trying to find more about the maze model here was an interesting find that makes a link between the maze and learning: Moving through the maze is nothing more than learning (feeding from the Tree of Knowledge, hunting for the Grail), which has its share of dead ends, suffering, cul-de-sacs, etc. At the center of the maze, then, is the Tree of Life (divine wisdom) but only if the initiate asks the right question. Otherwise the suffering reaches a crisis point that slays the participant. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0091.html It may not be the kind of maze you had in mind Patrick, but I am sure there is scope (especially in outdoor education) for using a model that draws attention to what is outside the learner as the learner makes a journey through an environment. Despite the complexity of a good maze, the puzzle or mission is usually quite simple - with route choice being right or wrong with nothing in between. So a maze seems like a fitting model for some very specialised kinds of learning journey, but I can't see how it would have a general application.
Thanks Jayson for reminding me of Tara Fenwick's work. I was lucky enough to attend a lecture of hers a couple of years ago. I remember being very impressed and clapping loudly, but I did not follow Tony Buzan's advice of revisiting my notes at specific intervals, and there are very few details left in my long term memory. (I will take an overdue look!)
If people create a visual model to go with their ideas I find they tend to stick a bit better. James' slide presentation, for example, includes Kolb's cycle, Colin Beard's colourful combination lock, Andy Martin's colourful dramaturgy wave. On noticing that several PhD theses involved the creation of a model, I asked my research supervisor if model-making was obligatory for a PhD and I was reassured it wasn't - so I didn't make one.
I wonder if there is more wisdom in messy 'difficult-to-model-easy-to-forget' processes than there is in processes that are easy to model and difficult to forget?
Perhaps it is because linear processes are so easy to model that they seem to have a habit of outliving their usefulness and of being given more credibility and usage than they actually deserve. Longevity of ideas seems to depend more on whether they can be conveniently packaged into a simple formula, than on whether the package is a credible representation of the process it claims to describe.
So, Jay, I am not trying to create another imperfect model. My thoughts are closer to Sam's comment 'Throw it away' if it doesn't work
So is it time to throw away linear process models in outdoor learning - and throw away a few well-used slides and handouts?
Roger
Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
< http://reviewing.co.uk<http://reviewing.co.uk/> <http://reviewing.co.uk/> >
--
In Adventure & Education,
Karel Hilversum, MS Exp. Education
President / Senior Consultant
The Outside Group, Inc.
PO Box 190761
San Juan, PR 00919
Tel/Fax 787-982-0522
www.outsidegroup.com<http://www.outsidegroup.com/> <http://www.outsidegroup.com<http://www.outsidegroup.com/>>
Experiential & Adventure Education Programs Since 1997
Providers of the Alpine Tower Experience in Puerto Rico
Challenge Ropes Courses - GeoTrek - Tall Ship Team Sailing
Corporate Teambuilding - Caving Expeditions - Wilderness First Aid
Independent Operators of Duke of Edingburgh Award Program
The International Award for Young People - Puerto Rico
Jay Roberts
Associate Professor, Education and Environmental Studies
Earlham College
(765) 983-1327
www.earlham.edu
|
