Adventure Education:
A Historical and Theoretical Perspective of Challenge Course Education Chris Cavert, Ed.D. Copyright © 2009
Adventure education, adventure-based education, and challenge course
education (a component of adventure-based education), are very recent educational
phenomena when compared to the overall picture of modern education. They are
methodologies, means to specific educational ends or purposes. I agree with Wurding’s
(1994) claim that, “the purpose [of adventure education] is to help people learn more
about themselves and the world they live in” (p. 26). This is an educational goal beyond
the academic learning of traditional educational settings, what I consider to be social
learning. Challenge course education provides room for social development and
understanding. These ideas and ways of addressing them have been imbedded in a
long history of educational thoughts and practices.
It is the purpose of this paper to delineate the historical and theoretical
underpinnings of challenge course education. I will first explore the foundational
premises of experiential education and experiential learning in order to ground
challenge course practices into the overall picture of education. From this vantage point
I will move into the specific aspects of adventure education and adventure-based
education in order to clarify the origin and utility of the challenge course.
It is a common understanding that if we know where we have been, we are better
able to know where we’re going. If challenge course practitioners (i.e., facilitators) are
provided with historical and theoretical information about what they are a part of, they
will be better prepared to participate in the goals and purposes of challenge course
education. And, better able to add to and advance this type of social learning
experience.
Experiential Education
A History of Experiential Education
Experience as a noun, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (2007), is “the
fact of being consciously the subject of a state or condition or being consciously
affected by an event.” Experience as a verb is “to have experience of; to meet with; to
feel, suffer, undergo.” Experience as education is commonly known today by the noun
experiential education and by the action, or verb, as experiential learning. The use of
the word “experience,” both noun and verb, and alternate forms of the word and
meaning, have been used by educators throughout time in order to express the
importance of how, we as humans, learn.
Aristotle
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) recognized early on the importance of experience and
experiencing. He broke from the traditional views of Plato’s educational idea that forms
could only be realized and understood through dialect or through the mind. Aristotle
taught the realization and understanding of forms by studying the material things
themselves (Ozmon & Craver, 2003). In this way knowledge was obtained through the
senses, through experiencing the forms. Aristotle, in Book II of his Nicomachean Ethics
stated, “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing
them” (quoted in Reed & Johnson, 2000, p. 22). Realism, discovering how the world
works by examining it, became a new way to know and understand the world – a
progressive form of education at its time. Students, to the realist, are viewed as
organisms that come in contact with reality through sensory experiences (Knight, 1998,
p. 49).
John Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) was one particular educator responsible for bringing
realism into the modern world. He was able to advance the notion that all knowledge
came through experience. Locke is most widely known for developing the concept that
the mind is a blank slate, a tabula rasa, imprinted with ideas through sensations and
reflection. As Ozmon and Carver (2003) note:
Locke believed that as people have more experiences, they have more ideas
imprinted on the mind and more with which to relate…The only way people can
be sure their ideas are correct is by verifying them in experience. (p. 129)
Locke himself said, “[t]o accustom a child to have true notions of things…as I have said
[is] to accustom them [sic] to truth and sincerity, to a submission of reason and, as
much as may be, to reflect on their own actions” (quoted from Some Thoughts
Concerning Education, John Locke, 1925, in Reed & Johnson, 2000, pp. 56-57). This
reflection on actions, or experiences, is a significant component of the experiential
learning cycle developed in the twentieth century.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) also advocated for direct experience in
educational pursuits. He is considered to be one of the major intellectual influences on
modern progressive education – a philosophy that was reestablished in reaction to the
overpowering hold of traditional information assimilation education in the late 1800s.
Rousseau is most remembered by his ideas of education portrayed through his
fictional student Emile. In these ideas Rousseau established three sources of education:
nature, that of the spontaneous development of a person’s physical body; human
beings, the social contact one experiences; and things, the encounters of personal
experiences from surrounding objects. His ideas of naturalistic education helped
educators become more sympathetic to the developmental stages and natural
tendencies of the child (Ozmon & Craver, 2003). Rousseau would say about Emile (in a
book by the same name, Emile, 1762):
Let us lay it down as an incontestable principle that the first impulses of nature
are always right…the child should not do anything because he is seen or heard
by other people, but only do what nature demands of him…[naturalistic]
experience apart from anything else should take the place of law for him…If he
knows nothing by heart, he knows a great deal by experience. (quoted in Reed &
Johnson, 2000, pp. 67-68)
In other words, Rousseau believed that the experiences that came naturally to the child
through creative endeavors such as, movement, exploration, and wonder should be
nurtured, and not replaced by the “laws” or doctrine to be known “by heart”, typically
disseminated in the schools of the time.
Johann Pestalozzi
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827) was one of the many “experiential”
educators influenced by Rousseau’s natural philosophy recommending that children be
educated through the experiences of their senses. Pestalozzi wrote:
Nature, in her advance toward development, invariably follows the important law,
that the degree of clearness of our knowledge depends on the greater or less
distance of the objects which we perceive [sic]. Every thing in the surrounding
world appears confused in proportion as it is distanced from us; whatever, on the
contrary, is near, appears more distinct. As far as I am an inhabitant of this world,
my five senses are myself; and therefore the clearness or obscurity of my ideas
must depend on the distance from which each impression reaches these senses.
(quoted in Krusi, 1875, p. 156)
Educating within this philosophy, Pestalozzi is credited for creating the “object
lesson” approach to explore the students’ surroundings through their senses. An object
in the lives of the students, for example a lamp, would be encountered, described, and
explored through experiencing the object and then answering questions, posed by the
educator, about the object (Noddings, 1998, p. 19). This question posing is another
hallmark of the experiential learning process promoted in the twentieth century.
“Experience” into the Twentieth Century
By the late eighteen hundreds a resurgence of progressive ideas began to
surface in the United States giving birth to a pragmatic philosophy of education – the
idea that “mind and matter are not two separate and independent substances. People
know about matter only as they experience it and reflect upon that experience with their
minds” (Knight, 1998, p. 63). Locke posited this idea of reflection, a significant
component of the experiential learning cycle yet to come, nearly two hundred years
before the pragmatic philosophy became widely known.
Pragmatic Thinking
Charles Peirce (1839-1914) has been credited by many (Schubert, 1986; Knight,
1998; Noddings, 1998; Ozmon & Craver, 2003) as the person who initially influenced
pragmatic thinking in the United States. His article, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,”
published in Popular Science Monthly in 1878, suggested that we give meaning to
objects in our reality through the way we interact with the object. In Peirce’s words,
“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearing, we conceive the
object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of
our conception of the object” (quoted in Noddings, 1998, p. 25). In other words, Peirce
emphasized that we give meaning to objects through our experiences with them and the
consequences of the experience. For pragmatic thinkers, objects could have different
meanings for different people depending on how each person experiences the object.
Pragmatic, or experiential ideas were advanced by William James (1842-1910), a
contemporary of Peirce, who was in a better position to bring the philosophy of
pragmatism to the public. James, influenced by Peirce’s practical consequences of
experiences, promoted the idea of “radical empiricism” – meaning that truth cannot be
separated from experience (Ozmon & Craver, 2003). In educational circles, James is
most remembered through his ideas in Talks to Teachers, published in 1899. James
advised teachers not to preach too much (referring to traditional methods of education)
and allow the student to take the first steps towards learning. He noted that action and
feeling go together, and stressed that it is importance to teach what students care
about, so their actions can lead to learning. James also noted that the students will pay
more attention to what the teacher does than what the teacher says. This idea put an
emphasis on the teacher as a role model, and some might claim planted the seeds of
the educator as “facilitator,” and not just one who provides information. Experiential
learning interactions between the students, teachers, and the objects they studied were
the focus of James’ and other pragmatists’ work.
John Dewey
Without question, the most notable pragmatist was John Dewey (1859-1952).
According to Pinar and his colleagues (2004), Dewey’s contribution to curricular and
educational thought is “incalculable.” His belief in experiential learning permeated his
contributions to philosophy and education through such works as The Child and the
Curriculum (1902), How We Think (1910), Democracy and Education (1916),
Experience and Nature (1925), Art as Experience (1934), and Experience and
Education (1938). Dewey’s (1916) definition of education at the time of progressive
thought, was the “reconstruction or reorganization of experiences which adds to the
meaning of experience, and which increases abilities to direct the course of subsequent
experiences” (p. 76).
Like Peirce and James, Dewey believed that experience was the center of all
learning and it was essential that the child take part in the direction of his or her learning
experiences (no doubt influenced by the ideas of Rousseau, Pestalozzi and others).
During his career as an educator and philosopher, Dewey emphasizes that education
should be relevant to the students and be a way to advance the goals of a healthy
society. The teacher’s duty was to create “educative” environments that would relate to
and bring out the students interests. The teacher would then guide the student towards
worthwhile or educative experiences – those experiences that would have meaning to
the student. These educative experiences had both continuity and interaction. The
continuity was how experiences connected to one another so that the learning from one
would help to understand the next. The interaction of an experience was how closely
the experience fits, or interacts, with the internal interest of the student. These two
factors would lead to a continued interest in future experiences. This can be contrasted
with a “mis-educative” experience which is any experience “that has the effect of
arresting or distorting the growth of future experience” (Dewey, 1998/1938).
By the time Dewey published Experience and Education in 1938, he had well
established himself as a leader in pragmatic thought and in the progressive education
movement. His philosophy of education would become the cornerstone of experiential
education theory, and from that moment on would overlap with the philosophical
principles of adventure education. The historical aspects of experiential education and
experiential learning will continue as they intertwine with the contemporary theoretical
considerations we will now explore.
Experiential Education Theory
It is noted in one of the most recent publications on adventure education, that the
most common learning theory applied to adventure and experiential education today is
David Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (Panicucci, 2007). Kolb (1984) states:
Experiential learning theory…offers the foundation for an approach to education
and learning as a lifelong process that is soundly based in intellectual traditions
of social psychology, philosophy, and cognitive psychology. The experiential
learning model pursues a framework for examining and strengthening the critical
linkages among education, work, and personal development. (pp. 3-4)
Before looking at Kolb’s model, I want to explore the intellectual traditions he
noted through the theoretical works of the people who influenced him, as well as some
of the other educators who have contributed to the theoretical aspects of experiential
education.
Figure 2.1: Dewey’s Learning Process (Beard & Wilson, 2002, p. 29)
Observation
Knowledge Judgment
John Dewey
We have already established John Dewey as being one of the most influential
educational theorists of the twentieth century (Kolb, 1984; Beard & Wilson, 2002; Prouty
et al., 2007). His support for the process of experiential learning is well documented.
Beard and Wilson (2002) give Dewey credit for one of the first “learning processes” or
cyclical learning models associated with experiential learning (Figure 2.1). Through
Dewey’s work they determined that learning first begins with an observation, a cognitive
awareness of something. The learner then gains some knowledge from this observation
that is then given a judgment as to whether or not this knowledge will be used or
discarded. As judgments are assimilated they become data in regards to considering
future observations.
Dewey’s (1910/1991) notions of how we think, or learn, are actually a bit more
involved. He distinguishes between mere “inconsequential trifling” or unconnected
thoughts and the process of “reflective thought.” Reflective thoughts are connected so
that one thought grows out of another, each thought supporting one another. These
thoughts take the learner beyond supposed knowledge and into “accepting or rejecting
of something as reasonably probable or improbable” (p. 4). The way Dewey sees it, not
all thinking leads to learning, just like not all observations will lead to knowledge and
judgment in order to better understand another observation.
To take Dewey’s ideas one step further, he goes on to explain that thinking
involves conscious reflection on a problem, or some new information. First the learner
stops to focus on a problem at hand. Second, a diagnosis of the true nature of the
problem is considered. The third step is the consideration of the possible solutions to
the problem followed by a fourth step of considering the probable consequences if each
solution were carried out. In the fifth, and final stage of the cycle, the most realistic
solution is put to action, and the consequences are considered. If the solution is
acceptable, knowledge is gained about the problem and can be used in future similar
“salutations” or experiences. If the solution fails, the learner goes back, to at least step
four in order to find another solution to the problem; or, in the case of encountering new
information, another way to generalize it with existing knowledge.
As Miettinen (2000) would point out some ninety years later, Dewey considered
“non-reflective” experiences based on our habits as the dominant form of experience
and our only “reason for reflection was the necessity of solving problems faced in
habitual ways of action” (p. 61). To say this in another way, facing or experiencing
“problems” that take us out of our everyday habits is the precursor to learning. This
cycle of reflective thought would inevitably be a critical component of experiential
learning theory.
As noted earlier, by the late 1930s, Dewey (1939) would solidify his idea of
educative experiences having both continuity (experiences being connected together
through reflective thought) and interaction (how experiences connect internally with the
learner). Educative experiences at times developed and presented by an instructor and
at other times simply encountered by the learner, lead the learner out of habit and into
“problems” to consider. The learner gains knowledge and skill from one experience,
which “becomes an instrument of understanding and dealing effectively with the
situations that follow. The process goes on as long as life and learning continues”
(Dewey, 1998/1938, p. 42). With the promotion of pragmatic thought and Dewey’s
continued emphasis on experience as education in the first half of the twentieth century,
other notable figures began to contribute theoretical support to the growing body of
knowledge on experiential learning.
Kurt Lewin and Colleagues
In the 1940s and 50s Kurt Lewin and his colleagues began exploring the use of
action research and T-groups as a way to educate or “re-educate” and improve the
working relations of particular groups of people. The premise behind action research
was simply to base individual or group “action” on carefully collected and analyzed data.
Lewin (1997/1948), using a group example, describes the action research process as
first planning to meet some group objective. In other words, what does the group decide
to do in order to meet a particular objective “in light of the means available” (p. 145)?
Once an overall plan is reached and the initial first step of action is determined, the
group goes about executing, or taking action, on the plan. Once the plan has run its
course, a “reconnaissance” or fact-finding step is conducted in order to 1) evaluate
action, 2) give the group a chance to learn, and 3) provide information for “correctly”
planning for the next objective (p. 146). This action research process is summed up well
by Schein and Bennis (1965). “Whenever possible, valid data are used to influence
action, and action, itself, creates still more data for evaluation” (p. 29).
Over time, Lewin and his colleagues became known for their work-group relational
studies that specifically focused on training new individual and group behaviors. They
established the “in-group” – a group formed in such a way so that its members would
feel “belongingness” (Lewin, 1997/1948, p. 55). The principle of in-grouping Lewin said,
makes [it] understandable why complete acceptance of previously rejected facts
can be achieved best through discovery of these facts by the group members
themselves. Then, and frequently only then, do the facts become really their facts
(as against other people’s facts). An individual will believe facts he himself had
discovered in the same way that he believes in himself or in his group. (author
emphasis, p. 55)
In-group training turned the learning over to the group and its members.
Formally, the action research process was considered “laboratory training” with
individuals formed into training groups or what became known as T-groups. Laboratory
training of this kind, according to Shein and Bennis (1965) was “distinguished by its
emphasis on the socially relevant aspects of behavior and stress[ed] connections
between the delegate [participant] and those reference groups which [were] most
important to him” (p. 30).
In 1960 Blake (found in Shein & Bennis, 1965), described this laboratory method
of training as a “dilemma-invention-feedback-generalization” model (as you will see,
derived from Lewin’s model). First the delegates [T-group participants] were faced with
a dilemma that was created by the trainer or by the trainer and participants together.
This dilemma was meant to simulate a specific problem the participants all agree to
work on. The participants would then work together to solve the dilemma through
experimentation and invention of new ideas – discovering solutions for themselves.
After this participants engaged in a feedback process in order to evaluate their own
actions and the actions of others. Finally, the participants and the trainer(s) would then
generalize what was learned about their group process in order to theorize and
hypothesize their knowledge into the next learning phase (i.e., dilemma).
To reiterate, the emphasis and the change in thought about Lewin’s group
development process was that the group “discovered” the answers to their problems for
themselves – the answers were not given to them by someone else. This experiential
discovery process turned out to be the underlying foundation of Kolb’s experiential
learning cycle.
Before we look at Kolb however, it will be prudent to consider a reference he
made (Kolb, 1971) to a learning process shared by Matthew Miles that had an influence
on the “so-called experiential learning model” he referred to as “a far more useful
approach to the learning process” (p. 1) – foreshadowing his own model to come in the
near future. It will also be important to consider the “experiential learning process”
promoted by James Coleman that was moving through traditional education circles
during the time Kolb was developing his ideas [my emphasis].
Matthew Miles
As a social psychologist, Miles (1959) focused on the processes for learning and
helping others learn effective group behavior. An educational training group Miles said,
was different from other educative settings because group members dealt with feelings,
not just facts, in the here-and-now. The attention of a training group is paid to “what is
happening between people, right now, as a means to learning” (p. 36). The here-and-
now is the major source of content. This group focus was different from a classroom
group (for example) whose here-and-now experience is related to a body of content. Or,
as Miles (1981) would say later, the “there and then” and “where and when” (p. 40).
The learning process model proposed by Miles (Figure 2.2), used with training
groups, depicts a series of steps group members go through during group training as a
way to learn new behavioral skills. After going through step A1 through step E1, the
learner returns to step A2, then B2 and so on. This learning process is repeated over
time.
Like Lewin and his colleagues, Miles promoted the idea of social learning during
training programs. Miles (1981) notes, a “training group is a group set up to help a wide
range of ‘normal’ people grow and make constructive change in their social selves by
analyzing their here-and-now experiences in the group, aided by the trainer” (p. 42).
Before moving on, I’d like to point out that Miles makes no reference to John
Dewey’s work even though his learning process model appears to be closely related to
the way Dewey described how we think. You can also find Dewey’s popular word
“educative” throughout Miles’ text. I’m not sure how common the word is, but it was
popularized during Dewey’s tenure. Making this point, we can now see in the
experiential learning literature during the second half of the twentieth century that ideas,
models, and theories begin to blend together without much credit to their origin.
Experiential learning, it appears, was becoming mainstream.
Figure 2.2: Steps in the Learning Process (Miles, 1959 p. 38)
A1: Dissatisfaction,
a problem
C1: Practicing
new behaviors
B1: Selecting new behaviors
D1: Getting evidence on results
A2: Finding new dissatisfactions and problems
E1: Generalizing, applying & integrating
James Coleman
In the 1970s James Coleman and others (e.g., Houle, 1977; Keeton & Tate,
1978) continued the support for experiential learning through traditional education
circles. As early as 1973 Coleman (1977) promoted a “theory of instruction” he called
the experiential learning process. He would say that this process was almost the
reverse of the information assimilation process commonly used in traditional education
settings. This model, according to Coleman, has four steps:
1. One carries out an action in a particular instance and sees the effects of that
action.
2. One gains understanding of the effects in a particular instance, so that if
exactly the same set of circumstances reappeared, one could anticipate what
would follow from the action.
3. One works to understand the general principle under which the particular
instance fell – the ability to see a connection between the actions and effects
over a range of circumstances.
4. One applies the new general principle through action in a new circumstance
within the range of generalization – at this level the person can be said to have
completed the learning so that the experience he has undergone is useful to him
in future actions. (1977, pp. 51-52)
Coleman’s use of the word “action” is reminiscent of Lewin’s action research
work. There is also a connection to Dewey in that the experience undergone is useful in
future actions – there is a “connection” from action to action. Coleman also brings in the
process of understanding outcomes of one’s actions as fitting into general principles,
and then into how these principles fit into a “range of generalizations.” This idea of
generalizing will be seen as a main feature in Kolb’s model (Coleman makes no
reference to Kolb and vice versa).
Even though Coleman is somewhat vague about its application, he is promoting
this experiential learning model within traditional educational settings as a way to teach
academic subjects – even though he does say that the process is more difficult and
time-consuming. And, he only makes one reference to two personal benefits realized
through the experiential process. He claims that the successes found through learning
in this way “strengthen self-esteem and a sense of personal mastery” (p. 60). There is
no indication, as with Lewin and Miles, that this process can be used as a way to
enhance social behaviors.
David Kolb
David Kolb’s interest in social psychology, social change, and executive
professional education, in the late 1960s and into the 1980s, led him to develop an
experiential learning theory that ultimately would support his well-known “Learning Style
Inventory” (Kolb, 1984). In one of his first papers (Kolb, 1971) he labeled this learning
theory, “The Experiential Learning Model” and represented it in a circular figure, calling
it, “My version of the model” (p. 2) (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: The Experiential Learning Model (Kolb, 1971, p. 2)
Kolb claimed that “[t]he core of this model is a simple description of the learning cycle,
of how experience is translated into concepts which in turn are used as guides in the
choice of new experiences” (pp. 1-2). He noted that the model was primarily developed
from the work of Schein and Bennis (1965) and gained acceptance through the work of
Concrete Experience
Observations and Reflections
Formation of Abstract Concepts and Generalization
Testing Implications of Concepts in New Situations
Miles (1959). The figure and terminology Kolb included in his version of the model
would remain unchanged throughout his career. However, it took on different names
over time.
In a book of exercises (Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1971) published the same year
as the paper noted above, the authors called Kolb’s cyclical figure “A Model of the
Learning/Problem-Solving Process” and claimed, as indicated by the label, that the
model was a combination of the characteristics of both the learning and problem solving
processes. They go on to say that this learning cycle continuously reoccurs in “human
beings” and that “the direction learning takes is governed by one’s felt needs and goals”
(p. 28). No references to or further explanation of the model are provided.
Kolb published his most notable work in 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience
as The Source of Learning and Development. In this work, his original experiential
learning model figure is named “The Lewinian Experiential Learning Model.” The model
contains the same four stages, in the same configuration as the 1971 model, however,
the label has changed. A rational for this change might be found in the first section of
Kolb’s (1984) text, where he does a very thorough job of giving credit to the contributors
of his learning theory, most notably John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget for his
theory that describes how intelligence is shaped by experience.
Due to this interesting chronicle of events, and a number of other factors, a
recent argument regarding Kolb’s 1984 publication was delivered by Miettinen (2000).
He proposes:
One cannot help concluding that Kolb’s motive is not critical evaluation or
interdisciplinary but an attempt to construct an ‘attractive’ collection of ideas that
can be advocated as a solution to the social problems of our time and to
substantiate the usefulness of his learning style inventory. (p. 56)
In other words, Miettinen views Kolb’s book as a “marketing promotion.”
Whether Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model is simply a marketing promotion or
not, the adventure education community has supported the use of what is now
commonly referred to as the “experiential learning cycle” credited to Kolb (see, Nadler &
Luckner, 1992; Wurdinger & Priest, 1999; Panicucci, 2007). The four stages of Kolb’s
model (Figure 2.3) are important to examine because of their direct connection to
challenge course education.
Even though Dewey, Lewin, and Kolb all concur that learning can start in
different stages within a learning process or model, the most common point of departure
is from a concrete experience. In adventure education, these experiences are most
often presented by a group leader or facilitator. The experience for Dewey could be
labeled a problem, for Lewin an action. In any case, it is the experience that provides an
opportunity for learning.
Upon completion of, or even during, an experience, observations and reflections
are made to discuss what has occurred or is occurring in regards to the experience. For
Lewin, this was the time when the group members participated in a feedback session to
determine what was and what wasn’t working. This reflection phase is an opportunity to
replay the experience in order to recognize information that is used in the next step,
formation of abstract concepts and generalizations.
By making generalizations and forming abstract, unclear, concepts, the group is
taking information from the experience and projecting it into future experiences. For
example, if the group determined that taking time to hear everyone’s ideas in the last
activity was important to their success, the generalization for them would be “let’s make
sure we set aside time for everyone to share ideas.” Using other important information,
the group develops additional abstract concepts and generalizations to take with them
into the next phase of the cycle.
Testing implications of concepts in new situations occurs along with another
concrete experience, or as Lewin would put it, the next action. The group makes the
effort to apply their generalizations and concepts to another experience. At the same
time, the group is also undergoing other possible opportunities to learn from the
“concrete” experience. In turn, the learning cycle continues to repeat itself as long as
the process is consciously engaged. For Dewey, if we return to our habits, breaking the
learning cycle, the possibilities to learn are negligible.
When it comes to adventure education, specifically challenge course education,
participants are guided through this “learning cycle” process by their facilitator. The
facilitator accepts the task of providing educative experiences for groups to learn from,
in order to meet the social development goals and objectives they set up for their
program.
Kolb’s Lewinian model provides a theoretically supported and structured process for the
facilitator to follow.
Reflection
Kraft and Sakofs (1988) provide a contemporary definition for experiential
education that portrays the philosophy of the practice:
Experiential education is the process of actively engaging students in an
authentic experience that will have benefits and consequences. Students make
discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves instead of hearing or
reading about the experiences of others. Students also reflect on their
experiences, thus developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways
of thinking. (p. 4)
It is easy to see the historical and theoretical influences of experiential education within
this definition. From this perspective it is time to explore how this definition fits with the
historical and theoretical aspects of adventure education, and how this definition is the
foundation of adventure-based education and more specifically, challenge course
education practices.
Adventure Education
With a specific reference and connection to Kolb’s “experiential learning cycle,”
Joseph Bailey (1999) contributed a definition of adventure education stating that it
involves, 1) a particular set of activities, often set in the outdoors, 2) it uses kinesthetic
learning through active physical experience, 3) it involves structured learning
experiences that create the opportunity for growth, and 4) it includes a conscious
reflection on the experience with intended application to future experiences.
Since Bailey’s contribution, the theoretical principles of adventure education have
apparently become even more difficult to separate from those of experiential education.
This notion is articulated best by Prouty (2007). He tells us:
Adventure education can be defined as direct, active, and engaging learning
experiences that involve the whole person and have real consequences.
Experiential education has a similar definition, comprising a broader umbrella
that encompasses learning methods that occur in less active modes such as the
classroom. The definitions of experiential education and adventure education are
merging and becoming less distinguishable because the element that makes
experiential education an adventure is not just how active or physically risky the
activity is, but what the learner’s overall state of mind is. If learners are out of
their comfort zone and are actively engaged in learning, then we are increasingly
likely to describe that as good adventure education. (p. 4)
Bisson (1996) actually shares an image of an umbrella labeled “experiential
education” with the ribs of the umbrella representing a number of aspects of outdoor
education, including among them, adventure education. “How did adventure education
come to be so enmeshed with experiential education?” and “What theoretical ideas
bracket the adventure education process?” are the questions to be explored in this
section.
A History of Adventure Education
It would be a formidable research task to trace the origins of adventure pursuits.
When did the first adventure take place? When did the first group of people venture out
together to engage in a “daring undertaking”? As adventure became noticed as a
pursuit, it has been defined as an undertaking which involves some level of risk (actual
or perceived) with relatively unknown outcomes or consequences (Miles & Priest, 1999;
Priest & Gass, 2005).
In the United States
Recreational adventure gained notoriety in the United States during the 1800s
through the establishment of the first residential summer camps and outdoor programs
offered through the newly formed YMCA. Also, as pristine areas of the country become
set aside as state parks, more and more people ventured to the out of doors as their
form of recreation (Raiola & O’Keefe, 1999).
Camping Education
Into the 1900s the literature on adventurous pursuits included the term camping
education coined by Lloyd Burgess Sharp who would become known as the “father of
public school camping” (Bunting, 2006, p. 20). This was a new focus for certain
educational endeavors, using outdoor environments and adventure as educational
tools. The curricular aspects of camping education included learning about the natural
environment, as well as the basic skills of cooking, setting camp, and hiking. Another
important aspect was simply that the outdoor environment provided “healthful” outdoor
living in the sunshine and fresh air (Hammerman, Hammerman & Hammerman, 1964).
By the 1960s the term camping education transitioned to outdoor education (Bisson,
1996) based on the diversity of outdoor activities (beyond camping) that were emerging
(e.g., mountain climbing, rock climbing, canoeing, skiing).
Outdoor Education
Under the category of outdoor education, new terms were established such as
environmental education, wilderness education, adventure education, and challenge
education. All these educational practices fell under the umbrella of experiential
education noted earlier by Bisson (1996). (For a detailed look at the semantics of
adventure programming, see Priest, 1999.)
As the terms became defined, experiences, specifically in adventure education,
involved a symbolic medium (e.g., adventure pursuit) that provided a lesson in the
moment and were not disconnected from the “doing” of what is being learned. From the
perspective of experiential education, learning comes from direct experience with an
object or situation rather than from reading or hearing about something, and possibly
experiencing it in the future.
In relation to the overall picture of outdoor education, adventure recreation and
adventure education are two experiential practices that are most often confused as
synonymous. Bailey (1999) notes that the “emphasis of the former [is] on the enjoyment
and satisfaction derived from an activity, while in the latter the social and personal
learning is the key value” (p. 39). It is now possible to look at how adventure education
developed its own boundaries.
Overseas: Kurt Hahn and Outward Bound
Kurt Hahn
The origin of adventure education is traced back to the work of Kurt Hahn (Raiola
& O’Keefe, 1999). Hahn was a German educator in the mid 1900s, dedicated to
creating “healthy environments in which young people could learn habits of life that
would protect them against….deteriorating values of modern life” (James, 2000, p. 37).
He was greatly influenced by Plato’s Republic and the quest for regenerating society
through education, as well as by the progressive and wholesome educational ideas of
his contemporary German educators Hermann Lietz and Cecil Reddie. Hahn was also
influenced by the pragmatist William James and his idea that it is possible to create, in
peace time, the social spirit that is generated in times of war (James, 2000). To
accomplish his goals, Hahn believed, like Rousseau, a separation from the existing
human world was needed. This idea, along with the opportunity to confront meaningful
challenges and to be of service to others, would allow young people, Hahn advanced, to
be more willing to bring a better society into being (James, 1990). His Salem school in
Germany, in the nineteen twenties, was part of a country castle away from modern
conveniences, well suited for his progressive ideas.
Hahn’s voice and efforts to create a better moral community were met with
disfavor in Hitler’s Germany. After a short imprisonment, he immigrated to England in
1933 starting another institution, Gordonstoun in Scotland. Under Hahn’s leadership,
Gordonstoun was a school that balanced the cognitive and physical aspects of
instruction. Students were assessed, among other things, on their sense of justice and
imagination, their ability to state facts precisely, and even their manners. In the Dewian
spirit, Hahn balanced traditional forms of education with progressive ideas. He penned
his educational methods as “The Seven Laws of Salem” (named at his Salem school in
Germany in the 1920s). These laws include the opportunity for self-discovery and
meeting with experiences of triumph and defeat. Hahn felt that overcoming a defeatist
attitude would help young people face the challenges of life with more courage. The
laws also provided for the opportunity to serve the community and to train the
imagination, so the young can better visualize, plan, and hope for a desirable future.
Another one of Hahn’s laws was to make games important but not predominant. This
meant less emphasis on competitive play and more emphasis on fairness and
cooperation (James, 2000). Again, Hahn’s emphasis on the students’ social
development, by way of experience, was just as important as their cognitive
development, by way of the classroom.
Outward Bound
Hahn believed, as did his contemporary progressivists in America, that
experience was essential to learning and to fulfilling his educational methods. With this
emphasis in mind it was in nearby Wales, in 1941 where Hahn, James Hogan, and
Lawrence Holt developed a residential “short course” (soon after to be named Outward
Bound) for sailors and other apprentices of industry to experientially learn how to
survive the dangers of the sea (Richards, n.d.). Holt’s distinction – training through
rather than training for – was always to be the essence of the short course’s dynamic. It
didn’t take long for Hahn and his colleagues to bring sea and wilderness short courses
(expeditions) to the students at their school as another means to meet their educational
objectives. Life-enhancing experience, as Hahn would be known to say, is obtained
through the sea, the mountains, the wild lake country, and the desert (Miner, 1999).
Outward Bound in the United States
Joshua Miner, an American educator, had the opportunity to teach with Hahn at
Gordonstoun in 1951. When Miner left in 1952 he resolved to bring, in some aspect,
Hahn’s philosophy of education to the United States. With dedicated effort and the help
of Charles Froelicher, the Colorado Outward Bound School was established in 1962. In
Hahn’s spirit, this school provided dramatic challenges and victories for people of all
ages that were not available through conventional forms of schooling (Sakofs &
Armstrong, 1996). The Colorado Outward Bound School was not an academic
institution. It was an alternative program that provided education through adventure
outside of the school walls. Though somewhat vague at first, the schools’ goals and
how they were to be accomplished were eventually identified to demonstrate their
educational credibility. Outward Bound’s key objective was: “To broaden enthusiasm for
and understanding of self, others and the environment. To enhance interpersonal
communication and cooperation” (Kalisch, 1979, p. 16). The Outward Bound motto was,
and still is: “To serve, to strive and not to yield” (p. 10). The success of the school and
its programs led to other mountain and sea Outward Bound schools across several
continents in the decades to come (Miner & Bolt, 2002/1981).
From the respected roots and the growth of Outward Bound, adventure
education became a powerful learning methodology. Predictably, adventure education
provides a context in which to learn about our natural environments. Adventure
education is “also concerned,” says Priest (1999) “with two relationships…interpersonal
and intrapersonal. Interpersonal relationships refer to how people get along in a
group…Intrapersonal relationships refer to how an individual gets along with self” (p.
111). With this in mind, it is time to consider the theoretical aspects of adventure
education.
Theoretical Aspects of Adventure Education
Experiential Learning Theory
The early Outward Bound courses were yet to be called adventure education,
this label would come later. Hahn referred to these courses, and what took place during
them, as “experience therapy” (Rohr, 1966). Specifically speaking of the Outward
Bound aspect of Hahn’s educational conceptions, true experiential education, as we
have come to know it here, was the theory behind the practice. Hahn’s purpose and
educational philosophy, he would always claim, was to help students learn to make
intelligent judgments and develop “the inherent strengths of selfhood” (Miner, 2000, p.
14).
Initially, working with seaman from Holt’s shipping company, the sailors would be
put into experiences that mirrored what they might encounter in the open sea. Through
this practice the sailors, in theory, would be better able to survive real life situations. It
didn’t take long for Hahn, and others, to realize the power of these natural experiences.
Soon the “expedition” became part of Hahn’s training devices specifically aimed at a
number of his Seven Laws of Salem, most notably, giving the students an opportunity
for self-discovery; giving them a chance to meet with triumph and defeat (to overcome
“defeatism”), and; giving the opportunity to experience self-effacement in a common
cause (Sakofs & Armstrong, 1996). Hahn (1960) would also give credit to the expedition
as contributing to one of his most valued educational goals, “building strength of
character.” At the time there was no empirical proof to Hahn’s claims, but in time there
would be (see Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards, 1997). “What started out as a wartime
school for survival” Green and Thompson (1990) would say, “has evolved into an
action-oriented program for personal growth, service to others, and physical
preparedness” (pp. 5-6)
Since Hahn’s idea of experience therapy, there was a pressing need in later
years to theoretically, and at times philosophically, support the use of adventure
education. Philosophically, Hunt (1990) promotes that adventure education is an
avenue that “impels” students into thought. Considering the context and purpose of
adventure, thoughts most often led to, as noted earlier, interpersonal and intrapersonal
relations. This philosophical idea leads directly into a number of theoretical points of
view that have been connected to adventure education over time.
Social Psychological Theories
A number of social psychological theories have been attributed to adventure
education (Miles, & Priest, 1999; Bunting, 2006; Ewert & Garvey, 2007). These theories
pertain to the psychological factors and social actions and interactions of individuals and
groups. Three of the most common theories considered in relation to adventure
education are self-efficacy, attribution, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, defined by Albert Bandura (1986), is an individual’s perception of
ability or the belief in his or her ability to accomplish a specific task. Adventure
education practices provide a wide range of tasks for individuals to work on that, as we
know, involve some level of risk and unknown outcome. Bunting (2006) notes that a
person’s efficacy can be affected by four basic processes: 1) Experiences of success –
adventure educators have the opportunity to plan experiences for participants that will
lead to success; 2) Verbal persuasion – adventure experiences provide the opportunity
for feedback which includes encouragement and support; 3) Vicarious experience –
participants have the opportunity to identify with others’ positive accomplishments
(which can lead to their own), and; 4) Emotional arousal – adventure experiences elicit
emotions that can lead to success as well as lead to learning opportunities. Adventure
education is not the only field that can contribute to the positive self-efficacy of an
individual, but it is a powerful one.
Attribution Theory & Locus of Control
Attribution theory is credited to Fritz Heider (1958). This theory basically looks to
what an individual or group “attributes” to their success - is success related to internal or
external factors? Strong internal attributions can be developed and encouraged through
adventure education. Martin (1999) claims that “[a] stable controllable internal self-
attribution of success from [adventure] involvement leads to the positive, eustress loop
described by Priest (1993)” (p. 173). Through the thoughtful planning and facilitation of
the adventure leader, individuals and groups can gain the understanding that they hold
the key to their success and, as the experiential learning cycle implies, apply this
knowledge to other aspects of their life. In more common terms, a stronger internal
“locus of control” is maintained.
The theory of locus of control runs parallel to attribution theory. It was situated
within a framework of Rotter’s (1954; see also 1990) social learning theory of
personality. In this light, it is easier to locate empirical research that connects adventure
education pursuits to the development of internal locus of control (see, Stremba, 1977;
Huie, 1983; Richards, van Gelder, & Neill, 1994).
Hierarchy of Needs, Self-Esteem and Self-Concept
Maslow’s (1970) theory of an individuals “hierarchy of needs” also plays strongly
into adventure education pursuits (Bunting, 2006). Each level of Maslow’s famous
pyramid of needs can be developed through adventure. The physiological needs are
addressed through the planning and preparation of a wilderness expedition (as an
example). The safety needs are addressed through skills training and the group
development process that precedes the trip. The belonging need is developed through
the trust that grows within the group as they work together before and during the
adventure. With a foundation of these three steps, and the accomplishments the
individuals achieve through this group work, a greater level of esteem (the fourth need),
or self-concept can be reached. It can also be argued (Kiewa, 1999), that Maslow’s idea
of self-actualization can be achieved through wilderness (adventure) programs.
It is here in Maslow’s hierarchy where you will find some of the most compelling
adventure education research – in the area of self-esteem, or self-concept. In Hatti et al.
(1997) there are more than a dozen studies related to self-esteem, self-concept and
other related attributes. It is through these and other studies that one is able to see how
adventure education affects the development of interpersonal and intrapersonal growth.
It is building that strength of character in order to be a better person in the world, as
Hahn would say. In one of his most cited quotes Sakofs (Sakofs et al., 1996), says, “I
regard it as the foremost task of education to ensure survival of these qualities; an
enterprising curiosity; an undefeatable spirit; tenacity in pursuit; readiness for sensible
self-denial and above all, compassion; (p. 3). Adventure education leads to such
qualities.
Ewert and Garvey (2007) extend our exploration and note that the outcomes of
adventure education include, moral development, personal growth, group development,
and leadership development. An offshoot of adventure education, adventure-based
education, shares in these outcomes and the theoretical perspectives. The difference,
we will discover, is found in the environmental contexts and activities.
Reflection
Even though the category of adventure education was not adopted until later, its
form started out in the United States as camping education and in Europe as
experience therapy. It has grown into a powerful social educational tool. Throughout the
twentieth century, adventure education practices have been utilized in personal, group,
and family counseling, business training, a variety of service professions, as well as
traditional, private, and residential educational settings. Its purpose has been, and
continues to be, a means through which individuals and groups can grow and learn
about themselves and others in an exciting and challenging context.
Adventure-Based Education
A History of Adventure-Based Education
Project Adventure
Outward Bound programs and its philosophy spread across the country in the
1960s and early 1970s. It was then, during the academic school year of 1970-71 that a
former Outward Bound educator, Jerome “Jerry” Pieh, was hired as the principal of a
Massachusetts high school. Along with the help of Gary Baker, Pieh was able to secure
a grant to provide a program, called Project Adventure, to mainstream the Outward
Bound philosophy into his secondary public school setting (Lentz, Smith, Sentkowski
and Seidman, 1976). This Project Adventure program, as it was named, was the
genesis for what Bisson (1996) calls challenge education, commonly known today as
adventure-based education – an educational methodology “based” on the philosophical
and theoretical principles of adventure education.
The significant difference between adventure education and adventure-based
education is the context in which the adventures take place. Adventure-based education
moves the dynamics of adventurous (wilderness) pursuits into more predictable
environments (e.g., classrooms, gymnasiums, athletic fields, and challenge courses),
away from the unpredictability of nature. Prouty (2007) gives us a more contemporary
distinction between the two, presenting adventure-based education as “facilities-based”
adventure education and the historical understanding of adventure education as
“wilderness-based” adventure education (Prouty, 2007). For the purpose of this paper, I
choose to stay with the more historical labels.
Hiring the help of key staff, some with Outward Bound backgrounds, Pieh’s goal
was to bring the objectives of the Outward Bound experience into the tenth grade
physical education program and academics subjects such as English, History, Science,
Theatre Arts, and Counseling (Prouty, 2007). Some of the adventure-based objectives
gleaned from Outward Bound included personal development – the opportunity to
extend self awareness and help to recognize one’s role in the community; Interpersonal
effectiveness – the opportunity to encourage open communications with others and
construct cooperative relationships; Learning – the opportunity to participate in an
environment and an attitude based on experimentation and experiential learning; and
Philosophy and values – the opportunity to test and refine personal values and
perspectives (Kalisch, 1979). These ideas incorporated a unique social element of
education into the traditional academic environment through adventure education
objectives.
This early transition is described by Karl Rohnke (personal communication,
December 16, 2007):
There were four of us on staff, so the four of us were developing curriculum most
of the time because it was new stuff…in the very beginning [first year] we tried to
follow a plan that had been made up which involved trying to transfer what
occurred during a 26 day residential experience at Outward Bound, and try to fit it
into a 50 minute block period of time, something that was not well received by the
students. In survival mode, and with nothing to lose…we shifted into creative
gear and began trying new approaches and activities. It worked…
From this creative beginning, Rohnke became the most prolific writer of
adventure-based activity books in the field. These cooperative teambuilding activities
were utilized in adventure-based education programs like the expedition was used in
adventure education. Rohnke (1977) promoted the use of these activities in order to:
1) Increase the participant’s level of confidence;
2) Increase mutual support within a group;
3) Develop an increased level of agility and physical coordination;
4) Develop an increased joy in one’s physical self and in being with others;
5) Develop an increased familiarity and identification with the natural world.
(pp. 7-8)
These activities and objectives helped to move the spirit, philosophy, and outcomes of
Outward Bound into the non-wilderness setting.
Challenge Course Education
A challenge course consists of constructed activities or “elements” aesthetically
designed and built in the outdoors with ropes, cables, and wood using trees or poles as
stable anchors to the ground. Challenge courses can also be found indoors with beams
and walls as the supporting structures. These elements are built in such a way as to
“stimulate challenges that might be found in a natural setting…involving mental,
physical, and emotional risk taking” (Rohnke, Rogers, Wall, & Tait, 2007, p. 3).
For example, two of the most common elements found on challenge courses
today are the Spider’s Web and the Pamper Pole. The Spider’s Web is a low element
that actually looks like a giant spider’s web with holes large enough to fit a person
through each one. The group is challenged to pass it’s members through the holes of
the web without touching the “silk” threads – they do not want to wake up the spider!
This activity promotes interpersonal reflection on social relation issues of planning, trust,
physical and emotional support, and aspects of success and failure. The Pamper Pole
is an individual high element. A participant, wearing a harness and tied into a belay
system, is challenged to climb a pole and stand on the top. The height of some of these
poles can reach up to 70 feet. Once on the top of the pole the next challenge is to jump
off towards a small bell hanging somewhere in front of them – touching the bell is an
added challenge. Attempting this activity can lead to intrapersonal issues of facing one’s
fears and trusting in one’s self as well as the system they are tied into. Each element or
activity presented on a challenge course provides an opportunity for social learning
experiences.
The challenge course was developed as a tool, used as a means to an end.
Initially this tool was called an obstacle course developed by George Herbert, a French
naval training officer (Rohnke, 1999; Wagstaff, n.d.) around the turn of the twentieth
century. Opposed to traditional ways of training, Herbert “developed obstacle courses in
natural areas that required the use of fundamental movements such as jumping,
climbing, running, walking, crawling, balancing, throwing, lifting and carrying” (Wagstaff,
n.d.). Herbert’s view on education in general, according to Cousineau (1976) “was a
return-to-nature approach with emphasis on development of ‘moral values and virile
character’”
(p. 3). Put in different words with the same meaning, not far from the purposes of using
the challenge course today.
The Outward Bound school at Aberdovey Wales, established in 1941, is
considered to be the first site of, what was then to be called, a ropes course or
challenge course (Wagstaff, n.d.). It was yet another tool in Hahn’s educational scheme
for his instructors to help their students build confidence in themselves and trust in
others. When the Outward Bound schools reached the United States in 1961, the ropes
course was a standard feature in every program. At the site of the first course in
Colorado, Miner and Bolt (2002/1981), share:
Central to the basic training were a set of initiative tests and the aerial ropes
course. The primary purpose of the initiatives was to build group cohesion and
espirit. They included the wall and beam, two tests that have become virtually
standard elements in the Outward Bound curriculum. The wall in particular is a
highly effective means of taking a collection of individuals, strangers to each
other, and transforming them into an instant group. (pp. 105-106)
Knowing the power of the ropes course through his Outward Bound training, it
was not long before Rohnke built a course for the Project Adventure program. “The one
thing we knew was transferable” says Rohnke, “other than the proven Outward Bound
concepts, was the challenge ropes course” (Rohnke, 1999, p. 348). In turn, the
challenge course would become an important aspect of adventure-based education.
The Project Adventure staff would ultimately train enthusiastic educators in
adventure-based methods and challenge course procedures from, not only their own
school, but also the surrounding schools as well. And, just like the success and the
expansion of Outward Bound schools, so too did adventure-based education in public
schools catch on and expand. The Project Adventure entity separated from the
Massachusetts public school in 1981, keeping the original name as a private non-profit
organization dedicated to helping develop adventure education in school settings across
the United States and around the world (Prouty, 2007).
Utilization of Adventure-Based Education
Since the formal implementation of adventure-based practices, starting with
Project Adventure in the field of education, a number of other fields have followed suit,
most notably counseling and business. Adventure-based counseling (Schoel, Prouty, &
Radcliff, 1988) involves the ideas, practices, and theories of adventure-based education
with group counseling within schools and other youth and adult organizations.
Organizational (business) training and development or experience-based training
and development (EBTD) (Miner, 1999), takes adventure-based education into the
corporate world. EBTD has been defined as “a process which uses challenge,
adventure, or risk (perceived or actual, physical or psychological) combined with
participant processing, usually in an outdoor or wild setting, to improve employees’
workplace performance” (p. 396). Adventure-based education, its practice and theories,
is used in fields interested in improving personal and interpersonal relationships in order
to affect other areas of individuals’ or group of individuals’ lives.
Theoretical Aspects of Adventure-Based Education
Table 2.1
Theories Related to Adventure and Adventure-Based Education (Ewert & Garvey, 2007)
Theory Proponents Salient Points Social Learning J. Rotter, A. Bandura
Interaction between individuals
and their environment is key
Goal-Driven
Behavior
V. H Vroom,
M. Csikszentmihali
Actual of expected goals serve
to guide action
Functionalism W. James Behavior is adaptive; focuses
on causes of events
Cognitive
Dissonance
L. Festinger Focuses on situations when an
individual if faced with
competing thoughts and beliefs
Optimal
Arousal
J. Hunt, M. Ellis Factors such as novelty,
variety, and change are
important variables in
psychological health
Overlapping Theories
The theoretical perspectives of adventure-based education are grounded in both
experiential and adventure education theories. In comparison, adventure-based
educators use the experiential learning cycle to work through the learning of program
activities. Program objectives and outcomes are often centered on aspects of
participants’ and the groups’ self-efficacy, locus of control and hierarchy of needs. Ewert
and Garvey (2007) also provide a number of other theories that can be seen integrated
into adventure-based education programs (Table 2.1).
Out of this table of related theories and the theories shared with adventure
education, social learning theory has a more particular fit with adventure-based
education. Even though adventure education experiences include a social learning
component, it can often take a back seat to the adventure at hand. For adventure-based
programs, the social aspect of the activities is one of the major focuses of programming.
The social learning opportunities available through adventure-based education are
expectedly found through the social interaction of the group members.
Social learning theory was developed through the work of Julian Rotter (1954)
and advanced by Albert Bandura (1977). Rotter posited that avoiding negative
consequences and seeking more positive consequences motivate human behavior.
Once a person experiences a positive outcome from a behavior, this person is prone to
continue this behavior. If the behavior is supported by social contact, the behavior is
even more likely to continue. Bandura supported and expanded Rotter’s ideas by
pointing out that people’s environments caused them to behave in certain ways – acting
on their psychological needs. Social learning then, according to Bandura included four
factors, 1) an attention to one’s environment, 2) a retention of what was observed, 3)
reproduction of desired behaviors, and 4) motivation to continue the desired behaviors.
These factors of the social learning theory fit with the objectives of adventure-
based activities and ultimately mesh nicely into the experiential learning cycle utilized
extensively in adventure-based programs. The attention to one’s environment is
consciously being a part of a concrete experience. The retention of what is observed is
enhanced through the observation and reflection of the cycle. The formation of
generalizations lead to a committed effort to reproduce desired behaviors. And, the
motivation to continue desired behaviors is of course testing them in new situations.
Social learning theory can be seen as a dominant aspect of adventure-based education.
Practitioners involved in adventure-based education also come to realize that any
of these psychosocial theories we have discussed can be found within the theoretical
practices outlined in Teaching Through Adventure (Lentz et al., 1976). From the
adventure and adventure-based education perspective, real learning takes place in a
context of adventure (consider Prouty’s take on experiential education and adventure
education noted earlier); learning is cooperative (or social); students need to understand
the connection between their adventure and the world outside the adventure (transfer of
learning promoted in the experiential learning cycle), and; “education should give
students an opportunity to bring together and to integrate the physical, emotional,
social, intellectual, and even the aesthetic aspects of the personality” (p. 9) (consider
the theories discussed in relation to both adventure and adventure-based education).
Adventure-Based Education Curriculum
More specifically, when looking at the objectives of the adventure-based curricula
the focus is, just like adventure education, on the use of adventurous activities to
encourage personal and social growth. Specific curricular activities include cooperative
games, stunts, trust activities, initiative problems and challenge course elements, both
low to the ground and high above the ground, taking place in either outdoor or indoor
settings.
The curricular theory of adventure-based education, and adventure education as
well, that scaffold the educational and psychosocial theories discussed thus far, is
described by Nadler and Luckner (1997) – still as prevalent today as it was in the early
1990s. The components of this theory include:
1. The Student – attending the course with some expectation of a meaningful learning experience. Some anticipation causes a sense of an internal situation
referred to as…
2. Disequilibrium – an individual’s awareness that a mismatch exists between old ways of thinking and new information, an important link to learning. This
disequilibrium takes place in a…
3. Novel Setting – an environment out of the ordinary for the individual that enhances the opportunity to break down individual and group barriers
contributing to heightened levels of arousal leading to underlying conditions of
effort, trust, constructive levels of anxiety and risk integrated within a…
4. Cooperative Environment – an atmosphere of education that emphasizes cooperative versus competitive learning that fosters the development of group
cohesiveness, and allows time for interpersonal and intrapersonal
communication while engaged in…
5. Unique Problem-Solving Situations – an involvement with new skills and problem-solving opportunities introduced to participants in a sequence of
increasing difficulty solved when group members draw on their mental, emotional
and physical resources. Completion of these tasks leads to…
6. Feelings of Accomplishment – which lead to increased self-esteem, an increase of locus of control, improved communication skills and more effective
problem-solving skills. The meaningfulness of these accomplishments is
augmented by…
7. Processing the Experiences – which is a time set aside for feedback and reflection on activities and interactions of the group allowing participants to
express thoughts and feelings that they are experiencing. This process is
essential if there is going to be…
8. Generalization and Transfer – the ultimate goal of the adventure-based [and adventure] experience. Participants are encouraged to discover ongoing
linkages, bridges, and connections to what they are learning so that they can
integrate their personal and group insights and desired behaviors into their
lifestyle during the remainder of their program and when they return home.
(Nadler & Luckner, 1997, pp. 7-8)
These theoretical components of adventure programs, taking place either on a
challenge course or in the wilderness, cover the curricular components of both
adventure and adventure-based educational offerings. The context and activities of the
adventure are the main factors that separate the two methodologies.
Reflection
Adventure Education, Adventure-based education, and more specifically to this
paper, challenge course education, are methodologies (and contexts) for interpersonal
and intrapersonal development. They are means to advancing social education. Even
though a challenge course is not needed to implement an adventure-based program
(Bunting, 2006), it has become a popular and enticing way to bring groups together in
order to learn and grow.
References
Bailey, J. (1999). A world of adventure education. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure Programming (39-42). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2002). The power of experiential learning: A handbook for
trainers and educators. London: Kogan Page.
Bisson, C. (1996). The outdoor education umbrella: A metaphoric model to
conceptualize outdoor experiential learning models. In, B. Baker (Ed.), Spawning new
ideas: A Cycle of discovery, Conference Proceedings (42-46). Boulder, CO: Association
for Experiential Education. (Retrieved from ERIC, ED416049)
Bunting, C. J. (2006). Interdisciplinary teaching through outdoor education. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Coleman, J. S. (1977). Differences between experiential and classroom learning. In M.
T. Keeton (Ed.), Experiential Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1991). How we think. New York: Prometheus Books. (Original work
published in 1910)
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. West
Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. (Original work published 1938)
Ewert, A., & Garvey, D. (2007). Philosophy and theory of adventure education. In D.
Prouty, J. Panicucci, & R. Collinson, (Eds.), Adventure education: Theory and
application (19-32). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Green, J., & Thompson, D. (1990). Outward Bound USA. In, J. C. Miles, & S. Priest
(Eds.), Adventure education, (5-9). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Hahn, K. (1960). Outward Bound. Address by Dr. Kurt Hahn at the Annual Meeting of
the Outward Bound Trust on the 20th July. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from
http://www.kurthahn.org/writings/obt1960.pdf
Hammerman, D. R., Hammerman, W. M., & Hammerman, E. L. (1964). Teaching in the
outdoors. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and
outward bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of
Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Houle, C. O. (1977). Deep traditions of experiential learning. In, M. T. Keeton (Ed.),
Experiential learning (19-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Huie, J. C. (1983). A semester Outward Bound course: An exploratory study of the
effects on locus of control, values, and life meaning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1372A.
Hunt, J. S. (1990). Philosophy of adventure education. In, J. C. Miles, & S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure education, (119-128). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
James, T. (2000). The only mountain worth climbing: An historical and philosophical
exploration of Outward Bound and its link to education. In E. Cousins (Ed.), Roots: From
Outward Bound to Expeditionary Learning (33-67). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Kalish, K. R. (1979). The role of the instructor in the outward bound educational
process. Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing.
Keeton, M. T., & Tate, P. (Eds.). (1978). Learning by experience: What, why, how. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kiewa, J. (1999). Kinesthetic awareness: At home in our bodies. In J. C. Miles & S.
Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (353-356). State College, PA: Venture
Publishing.
Knight, G. R. (1998). Issues & alternatives in educational philosophy (3rd ed.). Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process. MIT Sloan
Working Paper No. 535-71.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kraft, D., & Sakofs, M. M. (Eds.). (1988). The theory of experiential education. Boulder,
CO: Association of Experiential Education.
Krusi, H. A. W. (1875). Pestalozzi: His life work and influence. New York: Van Antwerp,
Bragg & Co.
Lentz, B., Smith, M., Sentkowski, A., & Seidman, M. (1976). Teaching through
adventure: A practical approach. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & Field theory in social science.
Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. (Resolving social conflicts
originally published in 1948; Field theory in social science originally published in 1951)
Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997). Processing the experience: Strategies to
enhance and generalize learning (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Martin, P. (1999). Practical stories in theoretical framework. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest
(Eds.), Adventure Programming (169-178). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of
reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 19(1), 54-72.
Miles, M. B. (1959). Learning to work in groups: A practical guide for educational
leaders. New York: Teachers College.
Miles, M. B. (1981). Learning to work in groups: A practical guide for members &
trainers (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College.
Miles, J. C., & Priest, S. (Eds.). (1999). Adventure programming. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Miner, J. L. (1999). The creation of Outward Bound. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure Programming (55-63). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Miner, J. L. (2000). If one cares enough: Teaching at Hahn’s school. In E. Cousins
(Ed.), Roots: From Outward Bound to Expeditionary Learning (9-27). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Miner, J. L., & Bolt, J. (2002). Outward Bound USA: Crew not passengers. Seattle, WA:
The Mountaineers Books. (Original work published 1981)
Nadler, R. S., & Luckner, J. L. (1992). Processing the adventure experience; theory and
practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Noddings, N. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Oxford English Dictionary (2007). Retrieved from Northern Arizona University on-line
resources, March 15, 2007, from http://libproxy.nau.edu:2065/entrance.dtl
Ozmon, H. A., & Carver, S. M. (2003). Philosophical foundations of education (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Panicucci, J. (2007). Cornerstone of adventure education. In D. Prouty, J. Panicucci, &
R. Collinson, (Eds.), Adventure education: Theory and application (33-48). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2004). Understanding
curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Priest, S. (1993). A new model for risk taking. Journal of Experiential Education, 16(1),
50-53.
Priest, S. (1999). The semantics of adventure programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest
(Eds.), Adventure Programming (111-114). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Prouty, D., Panicucci, J., & Collinson, R. (Eds.). (2007). Adventure education: Theory
and application. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Raiola, E., O’Keefe, M. (1999). Philosophy in practice: A history of adventure
programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (45-53). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Reed, R. F., & Johnson, T. W. (2000). Philosophical documents in education (2nd ed.).
New York: Longman.
Richards, A. (n.d.). The genesis of Outward Bound. Retrieved march 19, 2007, from
http://www.kurthahn.org/writings/GenesisofOB_new.pdf
Richards, G. E., van Gelder, J., & Neill, J. T. (1994). Locus of control changes on an
Outward Bound standard course. Canberra, Australia: Australian Outward Bound
Foundation.
Rohnke, K. (1977). Cowstails & cobras: A guide to ropes courses, initiative games, and
other adventure activities. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Rohnke, K. (1999). Ropes courses: A constructed adventure environment. In J. C. Miles
& S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (347-352). State College, PA: Venture
Publishing.
Rohnke, K., Rogers, D., Wall, J. B., & Tait, C. M. (2007). The complete ropes course
manual (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Rohr, H. (1966). The realm of education in the thought of Kurt Hahn. Comparative
Education, 3(1), 21-32.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. American
Psychologist 45, 489-493.
Sakofs, M., & Armstrong, G. P. (1996). Into the classroom: Outward Bound resources
for teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through
group methods. New York: John Wiley & Son.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York:
Macmillan.
Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliff, P. (1988). Islands of healing: A guide to adventure
based counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Stremba, R. H. (1977). A study of the relationship between participation in an Outward
Bound program and changes to self-esteem and locus of control. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 3300A.
Wagstaff, M. (n.d.). A history of challenge course. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from
http://acct.affiniscape.com/associations/5266/files/HistoryOfCCourses.pdf (no longer
available)
Wurding, S. (1994). Examining the learning process used in adventure education. The
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11 (3), 25-27.
Wurdinger, S. D., & Priest, S. (1999). Integrating theory and application in experiential
learning. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (187-192). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Build a Model
| Chapter: | 11 | Cash Flow Estimation and Risk Analysis | ||||||
| a. Develop a spreadsheet model, and use it to find the project’s NPV, IRR, and payback. | ||||||||
| Input Data (in thousands of dollars) | ||||||||
| Scenario name | Base Case | Note: the items in red will be used in a scenario analysis. | ||||||
| Probability of scenario | 50% | |||||||
| Equipment cost | $25,000 | |||||||
| Net operating working capital/Sales | 12% | Key Results: | ||||||
| First year sales (in units) | 2,000 | NPV = | ||||||
| Sales price per unit | $21.00 | IRR = | ||||||
| Variable cost per unit (excl. depr.) | $15.00 | Payback = | ||||||
| Nonvariable costs (excl. depr.) | $1,500 | |||||||
| Inflation in prices and costs | 2.5% | |||||||
| Estimated salvage value at year 4 | $1,000 | |||||||
| Depreciation years | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | ||||
| Depreciation rates | 20.00% | 32.00% | 19.20% | 11.52% | ||||
| Tax rate | 20% | |||||||
| WACC for average-risk projects | 10% | |||||||
| Intermediate Calculations | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| Units sold | ||||||||
| Sales price per unit (excl. depr.) | ||||||||
| Variable costs per unit (excl. depr.) | ||||||||
| Nonvariable costs (excl. depr.) | ||||||||
| Sales revenue | ||||||||
| Required level of net operating working capital | ||||||||
| Basis for depreciation | ||||||||
| Annual equipment depr. rate | 20.00% | 32.00% | 19.20% | 11.52% | ||||
| Annual depreciation expense | ||||||||
| Ending Bk Val: Cost – Accum Dep'rn | ||||||||
| Salvage value | ||||||||
| Profit (or loss) on salvage | ||||||||
| Tax on profit (or loss) | ||||||||
| Net cash flow due to salvage | ||||||||
| Years | ||||||||
| Cash Flow Forecast | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| Sales revenue | ||||||||
| Variable costs | ||||||||
| Nonvariable operating costs | ||||||||
| Depreciation (equipment) | ||||||||
| Oper. income before taxes (EBIT) | ||||||||
| Taxes on operating income (20%) | ||||||||
| Net operating profit after taxes | ||||||||
| Add back depreciation | ||||||||
| Equipment purchases | ||||||||
| Cash flow due to change in NOWC | ||||||||
| Net cash flow due to salvage | ||||||||
| Net Cash Flow (Time line of cash flows) | ||||||||
| Key Results: Appraisal of the Proposed Project | ||||||||
| Net Present Value (at 10%) = | ||||||||
| IRR = | ||||||||
| MIRR = | ||||||||
| Payback = | ||||||||
| Discounted Payback = | ||||||||
| Data for Payback Years | Years | |||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Net cash flow | ||||||||
| Cumulative CF | ||||||||
| Part of year required for payback | ||||||||
| Data for Discounted Payback Years | Years | |||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Net cash flow | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| Discounted cash flow | ||||||||
| Cumulative CF | ||||||||
| Part of year required for discounted payback | ||||||||
| b. Now conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine the sensitivity of NPV to changes in the sales price, variable costs per unit, and number of units sold. Set these variables’ values at 10% and 20% above and below their base-case values. | ||||||||
| % Deviation | 1st YEAR UNIT SALES | Note about data tables. The data in the column input should NOT be input using a cell reference to the column input cell. For example, the base case 1st Year Unit Sales in Cell B79 should be the number 2,000 and NOT have the formula =D10 in that cell. This is because you'll use D10 as the column input cell in the data table and if Excel tries to iteratively replace Cell D10 with the formula =D10 rather than a series of numbers, Excel will calculate the wrong answer. Unfortunately, Excel won't tell you that there is a problem, so you'll just get the wrong values for the data table! | ||||||
| from | Base | NPV | ||||||
| Base Case | 2,000 | $0 | ||||||
| -20% | ||||||||
| -10% | ||||||||
| 0% | ||||||||
| 10% | ||||||||
| 20% | ||||||||
| % Deviation | SALES PRICE | % Deviation | VARIABLE COST | |||||
| from | Base | NPV | from | Base | NPV | |||
| Base Case | $21.00 | $0 | Base Case | $15.00 | $0 | |||
| -20% | -20% | |||||||
| -10% | -10% | |||||||
| 0% | 0% | |||||||
| 10% | 10% | |||||||
| 20% | 20% | |||||||
| Deviation | NPV at Different Deviations from Base | |||||||
| from | Sales | Variable | ||||||
| Base Case | Units Sold | Price | Cost/Unit | |||||
| -20% | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| -10% | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 10% | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 20% | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Range | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| c. Now conduct a scenario analysis. Assume that there is a 25% probability that best-case conditions, with each of the variables discussed in Part b being 20% better than its base-case value, will occur. There is a 25% probability of worst-case conditions, with the variables 20% worse than base, and a 50% probability of base-case conditions. (Hint: Use Scenario Manager. Go to the Data menu, choose What-If-Analyis, the choose Scenario Manager. After you create the Scenario's, you can pick a scenario and type in the resulting NPV (but be sure to return the Scenario to the base-case afterward). Or you can create a Scenario Summary and use a cell reference to the Scenario Summary worksheet to show the NPV for each scenario.) | ||||||||
| Unit Sales | Sales Price per Unit | Variable Costs per Unit | ||||||
| Scenario | Probability | NPV | ||||||
| Best Case | 25% | 2,400 | $24.00 | $12.00 | ||||
| Base Case | 50% | 2,000 | $20.00 | $15.00 | ||||
| Worst Case | 25% | 1,600 | $16.00 | $18.00 | ||||
| Expected NPV = | ||||||||
| Standard Deviation = | ||||||||
| Coefficient of Variation = Std Dev / Expected NPV = | ||||||||
| d. If the project appears to be more or less risky than an average project, find its risk-adjusted NPV, IRR, and payback. | ||||||||
| CV range of firm's average-risk project: | 0.8 | to | 1.2 | |||||
| Low-risk WACC = | 8% | |||||||
| WACC = | 10% | |||||||
| High-risk WACC = | 13% | |||||||
| Risk-adjusted WACC = | ||||||||
| Risk adjusted NPV = | ||||||||
| IRR = | ||||||||
| Payback = | ||||||||
| e. On the basis of information in the problem, would you recommend that the project be accepted? | ||||||||
Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.
Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com