Objective Testing in the Outdoors

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.