Talk:Outdoor education/Archive 2008

History
The History section (as it stands) would be more accurately described as 'The History of Outward Bound' - which (if renamed) would create the need for a new section on "The History of Outdoor Education". This was the subject of Lynn Cook's PhD which would be a far better source (but I am not sure how global or UK-centric it is). If this page is really meant to be about 'outdoor education' then it should focus mainly on state provision (i.e. the education system) but without excluding relevant references to voluntary youth work, private sector provision and private schools. At present the focus is private sector. Yes - all play their part but the balance is embarrassingly distorted - probably for all concerned (whether included or not). Rev 15:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The History section includes the sentence: "Nevertheless, the beginning of the first Outward Bound centre at Aberdovey in Wales during the second world war is commonly recognized as the beginning of modern outdoor education." Who defines modern outdoor education and who commonly recognizes Aberdovey as its beginning? Arbitrarily picking a date as the start of a 'modern' period in OE needs some kind of explanation, definition and reference. The sentence beginning 'Nevertheless' contains a circular self-defining argument. Another problem with 'modern' in relation to OE is that much current practice (whatever your views on it) is actually restoring links to crafts and skills and knowledge and rituals that predate World War 2. And these days it is difficult to see 'modern' without considering 'post-modern' and how OE relates to postmodernism. I'd suggest: delete and start again.--RGreenaway 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The History section could include a reference to Pip Lynch's Camping in the Curriculum: A History of Outdoor Education in New Zealand Schools. This traces the history of (modern?) outdoor education from the 1870s. It is a history of outdoor education in the formal, compulsory education sector. It draws in a whole range of influences in the development of outdoor education, and shows how the shaping and fortunes of outdoor education are related to social, political, economic and educational change. It is a story of how local community support kept outdoor education going through different periods of history. It is not a story of 'Great Men' making things happen. I don't think we need a Great Man theory of outdoor education - the true history is far more complex and interesting. --RGreenaway 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy
What is the connection between the list of philosophers and the text above? What is the connection between the text and philosophy? Was it written by a philosopher? It is difficult to build on this kind of starting point. I think that in the UK outdoor education has grown out of mainstream educational philosophy that is enshrined in various Education Acts that restate in many ways the inclusive and holistic nature of state funded education. Outdoor education provides schools with ideal opportunities to boost or fulfill their professed aims. Once you include the massive range of providers of outdoor education, you need to draw on an equally massive range of educational philosophies that underpin, inspire or explain their various different approaches. The current starting point in this text implies that there is one global philosophy that underpins all outdoor education. Thank goodness there isn't, so let's not pretend there is. Would an educational philosopher please stand up and make a fresh start on this section? --RGreenaway 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence reads: 'We remember that we are part of a greater ecosystem and are not as bound by social customs and norms.' Apart from not liking the style ('we remember' - not me), the writer seems to forget that outdoor education is frequently used in order to socialise and to bind people more to 'social customs and norms' - whether general social norms or the desired norms of the organisations sponsoring the event or the preferred norms and customs of the organisation providing the event. For example, the very next sentence is about the provider instilling new norms and customs (about teamwork). The following sentence mentions high ropes courses (necessarily full of rules and regulations) and often preceded by a contracting process (the 'Full Value Contract') that (as contracts do) binds the parties to norms and customs. There is very clearly a need to separate out here the different kinds of outdoor education philosophies - or to sort out the contradictions in philosophies that are embarrassingly inconsistent. --RGreenaway 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory
Is the purpose of theories and models simply (as stated) 'to better understand' outdoor education? Or are theories and models about shaping outdoor education? If you are trying to 'better understand' volcanoes, no theory or model will change the volcano. But no outdoor education would exist without a theory or model to create it. Putting the cart before the horse damages the credibility of what follows. This section will need more careful writing and a sharper awareness of whether a theory/model is explaining or creating or both. --10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)RGreenaway

The examples given so far are very narrow. The introduction refers to 'specific outdoor education theories and models' but there is only one such theory/model in the list below (the Outward Bound Process Model). Others might be those of: Joseph Cornell, Stephen van Matre, Colin Mortlock. There is plenty of mainstream educational theory that explains and guides outdoor education. It is misleading to leave these out while including psychoevolutionary theory and the biophilia hypothesis in a very short list of 'key' theories. Why include controversial and poorly substantiated theories when there is so much solid educational theory around? Let's also include experiential learning theories and theories of development in this list. --10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)RGreenaway

Limited Political-Geographical and Social Scope
Currently, the article is very UK oriented firstly and in a more subtle sense US oriented secondly. The article is also with an Outward Bound bias. In fact this article, so far, is little more than a piece of very biased marketing. It is, so far, limited in all directions. It is hoped that those with deeper knowledge will contribute here.

For this reason, I have tagged the article as having limited very geographical scope. I would like to invite others to contribute content from a European, Asian, African, South American and Australasian perspectives (or any other perspective for that matter).

Also, if you are a non-English speak you may be interested to translate. Jtneill - Talk 04:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

UK
The UK section does not look as if it was written for Wikipedia. It looks as if it is copied from another source rather than written for this purpose. (For example, introducing a paragraph with the word 'Recently' is clearly not what someone would do if writing for an encyclopaedia.) Most of the UK section is about politics and campaigning. It appears underneath a section headed 'around the world'. It is not at all clear whether this is part of the history section or a 'recent political developments' section. A reader of Wikipedia would probably expect neither. I would have expected some kind of description of the kinds of outdoor education that are currently happening in the UK and some relevant statistics about participation. There are various publications from which this information could be drawn e.g. 'In Search of Adventure' and 'A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning: Literature review of 150 studies in the period 1993-2003' by Mark Rickinson and NFER colleagues, Field Studies Council, 2004. --Rev 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the UK section was largely cut and pasted from a journal article about 6 months ago - I've been gradually trying to whittle it down, simplify, shift extraneous content elsewhere, etc. the Lyme Bay content, to bring some balance, but have been cautious in doing so since I'm not an expert on OE in the UK. Hopefully someone like yourself more familiar with the OE UK scene could help in this respect.  The article has had a UK bias since I started editing about 18 months ago (hence I put the limited geographical scope tag at top) and have put the UK content into its own section and tried to encourage section stubs for other regions/countries. Jtneill - Talk 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Europe
If we take Norway as one European example we find that from the 1960s a Friluftsliv education has been officially approved by the government. This Friluftsliv ( open-air-life-education) is often similar to the USA-UK idea of outdoor education or outdoor adventure education. However the differences are very significant. It is here that for just one European country a better balance in this biased text is asked for. I hope that others will respond and contribute. There is, as yet, no European agreement unless the English language is taken as the mainframe. There are, as yet, few agreed translations of the terms like the outdoors, adventure or even of experience!!!

North America
The Roving Outdoor Conservation School (RO/CS) that began at Philmont Scout Ranch near Cimarron, New Mexico integrates elements of the Zoo School's Eco-Challenge events and Wilderness Inquiry programs inspired by Will Steger - polar explorer.

Theories

 * I removed the theories section because it is not relevant to the pages delivery of information on what is outdoor education. The theories section was unbalanced in the extreme. I have not found a section so titled under Experiential Education that works to polute and defame the field so vigorously and so felt that it needed to be removed. The purpose of the wiki is to provide people with information not personal criticism couched in theoretical papers to make the point feel more valid or to give the theory greter weight. If theories are to be presented in this manner then let both sides of the theoretical debate be present.


 * If I read the citations correctly the material covered criticism from four individuals writing in three publications. Without any familiarity in the field that makes me think that the criticism was properly sourced. We do try to present all notable views on a subject, pro and con. I think that article generally takes a postive view of the subject, so the criticism, or this case, "Theories", section is a necessary anodyne. I'm going to restore it, but let's see if we can't improve it. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC). You have been too kind here. This theoretical part has been hubris and commercial rant and rave. But this has been normal for this area of work for many years. I agree let us make a better Wikipedia display.

If this so called "theory" section is to be restored then it must be totally rewritten. There is no chance now of damage-control. The damage is already done. Delete and start all over again. This time with good supervision and support.

Students should NOT take this wikipedia text as study material. This is mainly a marketing promotion. This Wikipedia site as it stands today degrades serious study.

Question.
How is by participating in outdoor adventurous challenges supposed to help stop an undesirable behavior? (Cutefuzziebear)

The short answer is that Outdoor Ed/Adventure Ed programs use an experiential learning model to invite participants to reflect on their experiences, and identify what of their behavior is working in the group, and what behaviors would they like to modify. After which, participants are offered further activities and events to practice with the support of their peers, reinforcing desired behaviors, and problem solving what it takes to make new behaviors their norm.

''Yes this is a short answer (inviting someone to change behaviour that is not working). It is one of many possible short answers. It would not be my own short answer, but I would like to add it to my list of '22 ways in which activities can reduce offending' at. There is always a chance that inviting someone to change their behaviour will have the desired result, but I don't think this answers Cutefuzziebear's question 'How is participating in outdoor adventurous challenges supposed to help stop an undesirable behavior?' If I were Cutefuzziebear I would want to restate my question - because the strategy of inviting someone to change their behaviour does nothing to explain 'why use outdoor adventurous challenges?' Many researchers have looked at this issue and a summary was published in 1995 in Why Adventure? and is summarised at 12 years on there could be a better source by now? One benefit of Wikipedia is that it can be bang up to date. Let's make it so.'' --RGreenaway 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is there is little or no evidence for such claims. Outdoor Education ( or whatever similar names are used) has not even reached the stage where even soft objectivity can be seen through terms like the adventure, outdoors, undesirable behaviour or even behaviour which are terms used in this marketing.

How is it? The short answer is noboby knows!

a narrow view of outdoor education
The article begins: → Outdoor education (also known as adventure education) which instantly narrows down the scope of outdoor education and leads to later problems such as making → learn how to overcome adversity the first aim of outdoor education. But even 'adventure education' is about having adventures (fun, play, exploring) especially when young people taking part may already have enough adversity in their lives and may well hope to find some freedom, opportunity, potential, play, discovery and learning when taking part in outdoor education (or adventure education). --Rev 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The concept of 'overcoming adversity' does not sit well with the third aim 'develop a deeper relationship with nature'. These are 2 of 3 very different aims that are listed as if they combine to make a single aim for outdoor education. (The relevant sentence begins The aim of outdoor education is.) It would make more sense to explain that there are different kinds of outdoor education - not all of which are about developing a deeper relationship with nature, and not all of which are about overcoming adversity. These changes are too fundamental for minor edits - a complete rewrite is needed. --Rev 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Aims
The Aims section begins with statements about what outdoor education is NOT. It is not necessary to start in such a negative way - so start in a positive way! And I think it is misleading to say that participants are not expected to master the skills. The person who coined and promoted the term 'adventure education' in the UK (Colin Mortlock) was very much in favour of students mastering the skills of rock climbing and canoeing. (Don't hold them back!) Having high expectations of young people's abilities in such activities was a central part of his philosophy of adventure education. A Wikipedia article surely needs to include a wider range of views about outdoor education? Maybe the solution is for contributors to write about Outdoor Education in their own country, and not to assume that any single country (or organisation) defines Outdoor Education for the rest of the world? --Rev 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Aims section has problems. Its POV is very biased, not neutral. Even within the US, not all outdoor/experiential education programs have psychosocial aims. Even within the Outward Bound program, some leaders reject the idea that their job is to change the participants; to some, this idea seems at best presumptuous. For that reason, I prefer the term outdoor learning or experiential learning. 64.105.65.6 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a narrow view of outdoor education. I think a big part of the problem here comes in the failure to distinguish between outdoor education and adventure or adventure-based education. I think much of what is here belongs under the category of adventure education (which I have taken the redirect off of to this page). It must be noted that outdoor education is NOT the same as experiential learning or experiential education. This is the place where clarity must be gained. Unsigned

At the time of writing (7 October 2007) the aims section begins:

Some typical aims of outdoor education are: * to learn how to overcome adversity * to learn alongside others * to develop a deeper relationship with nature.

'Overcoming adversity' is not a typical aim of any OE that I have experienced. Maybe it was a typical aim in the 1950s, but in this century should we not be a bit more careful about creating a strong association between outdoors and adversity? In my experience OE is (in part) an opportunity to get away from adverse environments (work, street or school) where there may be stress, conflict, bullying etc. and making OE a thoroughly welcoming and supportive environment. Colin Mortlock's presentation of the aims of OE as developing love and respect for self, others and the environment is more typical than the theme of adversity (which happens but is more old school). P.S. 'Learning alongside others' is not an aim. --RGreenaway 12:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Critical views
An essay of mine 'In Search of Respectable Adventure' is quoted twice in this section. In my view, my article was NOT being critical of outdoor education. I was teasing out the differences between learning and development and the associated theories and I was suggesting that in the kinds of outdoor education where developmental outcomes are expected, it would be a good idea to use developmental theory as the main theoretical base rather than learning theory. There are other kinds of outdoor education in which it is more appropriate to use learning theory as the main theoretical base. Therefore this article is not critical of outdoor education, but is clarifying different kinds of outdoor education and recommending the matching of aims with appropriate theory.

I was brave enough to delete these misleading references to my article just now. But I then reinstated them because it left Loynes in a bit of a lonely position as the critic of outdoor education. I feel it would be irresponsible to delete reference to my writing in these circumstances - and even more so if I were to delete Loynes as well! --Rev 17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep banging on about deleting stuff, but the concluding paragraph in the Critical Views section is a prime candidate for deletion. Here it is:

''Whilst acknowledging the value of recreational experiences (both indoors and outdoors), some outdoor education commentators are concerned with the provision of outdoor education which may be essentially recreational in nature but ‘sold’ as educational. This may be intentional for numerous reasons, for example, outdoor education may attract more participants and therefore perhaps more funding. It may be unintentional if a lack of knowledge, for example, means providers believe they are offering educational experiences when, in fact, they may actually be recreational.''

Despite its careful style, the above paragraph is a partisan view (basically that a leopard cannot change its spots). The above paragaph should really only stay if there is also a paragraph which shows that many teachers up and down the UK are very pleased with the educational benefits that young people achieve as a result of programmes from providers who used to emphasise 'recreation' and who are now becoming more educational in their approach. But maybe not educational enough? Is the idea of a Critical Views section to summarise the debates going on within the sector, or is it to present critical views of the sector from outside? However it is done it should be much more balanced in the context of an encyclopaedia article. --Rev 17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

19 days later I discover that I must be talking to myself in this discussion (I have now changed my Wikipedia name from Rev to RGreenaway) so I have deleted the passages that were misrepresentations/misunderstandings of my own writing and I have deleted the one-sided and unsubstantiated final paragraph (beginning 'whilst acknowledging'). I do not think the standards of Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims beginning with the words 'some commentators ... are concerned with'. So these are my deletions/prunings (see below):--RGreenaway 20 December 2006 (UTC)

and Greenaway (1998) has commented on the “bewildering array of explanations and theories about the educational value of mountaineering and other adventures” suggesting that “some of these explanations are adopted simply to add ‘respectability’ to outdoor adventure” (p. 24) section deleted by --RGreenaway 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Later, Greenaway (1998) critiques the practice of what is often called outdoor education “If we simply rely on providing ‘new experiences’ and following ‘learning cycles’ or ‘processing sequences,’ we may be doing very little to enhance the quality and effectiveness of courses that are intended to provide ‘development’” (p. 26). section deleted by --RGreenaway 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst acknowledging the value of recreational experiences (both indoors and outdoors), some outdoor education commentators are concerned with the provision of outdoor education which may be essentially recreational in nature but ‘sold’ as educational. This may be intentional for numerous reasons, for example, outdoor education may attract more participants and therefore perhaps more funding. It may be unintentional if a lack of knowledge, for example, means providers believe they are offering educational experiences when, in fact, they may actually be recreational. section deleted by --RGreenaway 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with these deletions and think they are appropriate. I think the sections citing your work were originally cut and pasted from an academic journal article and as you point out didn't quite fit with the section headings.  Although this may leave the article with some bare bones, it is probably better to strip away tangential material and to create space for the future development of the article. Thanks for your help.  Jtneill - Talk 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

from Special:Contributions/84.251.88.222
I do not give a damn about IP Adresses. This text stinks. Quote me as you wish. This article is about as political and business-like as I might ever fear. To begin with it is advertisement for Outward Bound ( trade mark). Is this wikipedia style? If it is I quit. But is there an edit anyway here that can handle this?

The "style and format" for Wikipedia seems to important. But the content seems to be unimportent. people have complained about this text long enough and no action has been taken. What does this say for Wikiways?

It would be a shame if this article stands as it is today. In fact this article as it is posted on the internet today is one example of why many people do not trust wikipedia. This is a big shame. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool for a FEW organisations. Anybody with a little knowledge of this "subject" can see quite clearly just who is behind this text.

This "limited geographical scope" is, in fact a political event.

Wikipedia does not need, we hope, such events.

It maybe that many people will feel like giving up on this page because it has all been seen before. Propaganda has been a word used before. It is, however, worthwhile to try again through more voices that speak with some attempt at objectivity ( however soft).

The more this text is considered the more an Outward Bound bias is seen as a driving force. Shame this as an outdoor education ( with adventure) has been going on for many centuries and through many cultures all different from those stated here.

Please wipe out this "official" page and make again.

The official wikipedia format disguises the biased content!!!

About that bias..
Hi I think my original comment got missed because of where I stuck it on this discussion page - or I'm assuming so because I've not had a response - so I've reposted it here and removed it from it's original location.

I agree with the OB bias. I feel that the following reference to it reads purely as a "history of outward bound":

...and the Outward Bound movement.

In the second half of the twentieth century Outward Bound spread to over 40 countries around the world, including notably the USA in the 1960s. This, in turn, spawned many offshoot programs, including Project Adventure and the National Outdoor Leadership School and has lead to or significantly contributed to related fields such as adventure therapy, adventure recreation, adventure tourism, and ropes courses.

Would it not perhaps be more appropriate to just state that the "modern concept" of OE (which, I would argue, is constantly evolving anyway) spread across the world? I know many local authority centres also started up in the '60s in the UK (I've worked at one) and I'm sure that many other countries also did similar, with no link with OB at all!

--Vertilly 10:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the article and develop a richer history and understanding of OE than it currently offers. Yes, it may be biased towards emphasizing the role of OB, but I don't think that means we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. IMHO, feel free to build/broaden. Jtneill - Talk 06:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)