[email protected] 1

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

[email protected] 2

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

[email protected] 3

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:

[email protected] 4

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)

[email protected] 5

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.

[email protected] 6

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

[email protected] 7

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.

[email protected] 8

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

[email protected] 9

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.

[email protected] 10

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

[email protected] 11

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

[email protected] 12

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.

[email protected] 13

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

[email protected] 14

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

[email protected] 15

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

[email protected] 16

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

[email protected] 17

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

[email protected] 18

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:

[email protected] 19

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).

[email protected] 20

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

[email protected] 21

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,

[email protected] 22

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).

[email protected] 23

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.

[email protected] 24

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

[email protected] 25

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

[email protected] 26

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

[email protected] 27

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

[email protected] 28

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):

[email protected] 29

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

[email protected] 30

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:

[email protected] 31

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

[email protected] 32

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

[email protected] 33

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

[email protected] 34

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

[email protected] 35

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

[email protected] 36

(Bunting, 2006), it has become a popular and enticing way to bring groups together in

order to learn and grow.

[email protected] 37

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)

[email protected] 38

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.

[email protected] 39

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.

[email protected] 40

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.

[email protected] 41

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.

[email protected] 42

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.

[email protected] 43

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