Hi to Everyone
I'm very much enjoying the sorts of things people are touching on in  
this discussion.
There are lots of different sorts of learning expereinces to be had in  
outdoor and experiential education. I like Tara Fenwick's (2001)  
summary that generally we  presume learners to be independent and  
cognitively reflect on concrete experience to construct new  
understanding (certainly a model that fits easily into the neo-liberal  
complex of producing 'rational' economic decisions makers involved in  
an entreprenuial project of the autonomous consumer).
Any model - linear, holistic, or maze like, harbours assumptions about  
learners and the way in which learning occurs. Maybe one of the  
questions we need to ask is around how we construct learners and  
learning in outdoor and experiential education - given that the  
learning expereinces are so varied and for a whole range of different  
purposes I would think that we would think about learners in a range  
of ways. The learning that occurs when we teach a specific skill like  
navigation might / or might not be quite different from the learning  
that occurs when the focus is on community building, for example.
I like Roger's comment about what happens beyond the individual - how  
do the relationships with others (both human and non-human) shape our  
learning expereinces and our understanding of ourselves and of those  
others. I think much of our research focus has been on the independent  
learner and on what we (as researchers and educators) deem as to be  
the learning points (e.g. the activities - or the bits we think we  
influence in the programme) - in talking to students about what they  
think will stay with them from their experiences it often seems to be  
the bits inbetween - the sorts of relationships they develop with each  
other and with staff and where they can shape the 'culture' of the  
group.

I'm not ready to give up on models - they can be a useful place to  
begin to think about what is going on - even if they can only do this  
in a very shadowy form - but as Jason argues so clearly in his work -  
we need to know the history of models we use to understand the problem  
they were initailly deployed to think about - as Foucault reminds us -  
once a model or theory becomes disconnected from the original problem  
is when it can become dogmatic and a discplinary or normalising  
process rather than a useful tool to understand or think differently.
Likewise with theory - my favourite definition of theory is "thinking  
hard about something" (Bennington) - I don't find theory that gives me  
an 'answer' very useful - good theory should prompt us to ask new or  
different questions (Elizabeth Grosz) - and as Dewey says 'thinking is  
an expereince'

Robyn Zink

Quoting "Bill Krouwel" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hello Outres
>
> My halfpenn'orth...
>
> Sam's comments strike a chord with me - and reminds me a little of  
> Gary Thomas's ideas.  Thomas makes a powerful case against  theory,  
> characterising it (or at least its use in the educational world of  
> which, I guess, outdoor educators are a part) as being something of  
> a straitjacket, constricting our learning to that which fits theory,  
> and making, for example, masters' students subordinate their  
> reflection to a clearly stated theoretical basis - thus forcing  
> their often strikingly original thought processes into prescribed  
> theoretical paths.
>
> In the same way, perhaps models are like that, too - constricting  
> rather than explaining. In my experience they don't work very well  
> if we try to force the round pegs of people's actual experience into  
> the possibly-quite-square holes of the models. I agree with Karel -  
> models are helpful if they chime with the lived experience of  
> participants. If not, best leave alone...
>
> ... I note Chris' raising of the issue of narrative, and note that,  
> as time goes by, I find Bruner's thoughts on narrative to be rather  
> more helpful in considering peoples' unique learning journeys than  
> most models, no matter how holistic or non-linear they may be...
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Bill Krouwel
> -----
>   From: Roger Greenaway
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:00 PM
>   Subject: Re: the future of linear process models in outdoor learning
>
>
>   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>
>