Having worked with a variety of groups and individuals from
an eclectic mix of backgrounds and lifestyles over the course of my placement,
it became apparent that both adventure and outdoor education programs can be a real boost to self-esteem. Especially
for those who have not previously excelled, with many individuals discovering
for the first time that they can succeed,
a discovery that has a direct effect on their subsequent engagement and
motivation (Williams 2001). Through my own personal experience I do not believe
in that the growths and changes shown in many participants undertaking such
activities can be measured or recorded in an entirely accurate manner. It is my
belief that interaction between client and facilitator over the course of the
program can provide more insight into development of that individual a view
shared by Farrrager, Harrman, Bullard (1993) who found adventure experiences
are rich in assessment, with certain features of these experiences providing assessment
information difficult to obtain or represent accurately.
Having
viewed some of the various instrumentation used for analysing personal and
group changes in the outdoors such as the
Schwarzer & Jerusalem (1993) self
efficacy scale and (ROPELOC)
Review of Personal Effectiveness with Locus of Control (Richards, Ellis,
Neill, 2002). It is evident that they can be applied as a general measure but
are insensitive to change and unable to target specific behavioural changes of
which in my personal experience of which I believe is a crucial factor in order
to determine the effectiveness of an outdoor program.
Niell (2002) sates that a key aim of
any outdoor experimental program is to facilitate individual’s personal
development in many life skills, with specific aims. Yet if the instrumentation
used is unable to detect specific behavioural changes then it hedges the
question as to how important the inclusion of such a process would be in that
of the outdoors.
Experiential and outdoor education practitioners have been
making official claims that challenging outdoor expeditions are beneficial for
participant’s personal development (Neill, 2002). This is a statement that I
endorse, having being fortunate enough to find my self in an instructional role
within the outdoors I was able to observe first hand and also assist in the
process of improving individuals self esteem over the course of their adventure
challenge programs. I was able to assess and conclude using group observations
debriefing and reflecting periods both in a group and individual setting to
ascertain if the program implanted had made any changes in the clients self
esteem, without the need for instrumentation
used for analysing personal and group changes in the outdoors.
 |
| Figure 1.A Kura Kaupapa Māori school group from the Northland area watching the suset on Pinacle Ridge MT. Ruapehu prior to climbing into our snow caves |
In conclusion
I find my views representing that of McDonalds (1997), with the basis that the
accurate way of establishing and assessing the benefits of outdoor education
can be directly derived through the communication between facilitator and
clients with acute observations during the course of the program.
References
Randall Williams. (2011). The Benefits of Outdoor
Adventure.Available:
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2011/02/14/benefits-outdoor-adventure/. Last
accessed 7th May 2013.
Farrrager.
B, Harrman. S, Bullard. M (1993) Therapeutic Applications of Adventure in a
therapeutic wilderness setting. Boulder CO. Association for the Experimental
Education
Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (in
preparation). The Life Effectiveness
Questionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of Western
Sydney.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived
self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin,
Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.
