Traditional adventure activities in outdoor environmental education

Recently, the place of adventure activities in outdoor education has become contentious, particularly in Australia and the United Kingdom. It can be challenging for outdoor leaders to incorporate adventure activities with attempts to foster environmental awareness, understanding and action. Recently, some authors have suggested practitioners eliminate the tension by removing adventure activities from outdoor environmental education programs altogether. This paper presents the findings of an ongoing action research project exploring ways to resolve the tension between using adventure activities and helping participants to learn about particular regions, communities, and their histories. The research described in this paper utilised thematic analysis of data collected through a professional journal, focus groups, and student writing. The emerging themes included: the need to capitalise on teachable moments; the importance of managing the technical nature of adventure activities; the importance of deliberate planning and facilitation; and the need for careful consideration of the impact of program length or duration. The greening of outdoor education Personal and social benefits are often identified as chief outcomes in outdoor education programs. However, because they are not unique to outdoor education, they provide only weak support for the place of outdoor education in a crowded school curriculum. Nicol (2002b) laments the paucity of academic writing clarifying the potential contribution of outdoor education. Some authors have sought to raise the profile of outdoor education by shifting the focus away from personal and social benefits and forging stronger ties with environmental education. In 1993, Brookes developed the notion of a deep outdoor education and he challenged outdoor educators to become better equipped to understand and articulate the role of outdoor education in the broader school curriculum. For Brookes, deep outdoor education develops “alternative understandings of the nature of knowledge, the role of science, the ways in which nature should be valued, the relationships between individual and the wider community” (p. 16). Brookes was critical of weak justifications for outdoor education and he encouraged outdoor educators to provide a critical rationale for their programs and to be clearer on why other forms of traditional education do not provide the same opportunities for learning. Martin (1998, 1999) coined the term critical outdoor education to describe a similar form of outdoor education based on critical theory. Critical theory originated from the work of Kant, Hegel, and Marx and was further developed by Habermas and his predecessors in the Frankfurt School (Rasmussen, 1996). Critical theory seeks to expose the operation of power and to bring about social justice by redressing inequalities, and promoting individual freedoms within a democratic society (Habermas, 1984, 1991). From Martin’s (1999) perspective, critical outdoor education “goes to the bush, not just to recreate and have fun, but to look back with a critical perspective at the contexts left behind, particularly to those sets of beliefs which help shape human-nature relationships” (p. 465). Ideally, participants are also encouraged to be agents of change in those “left behind” contexts, upon their return. Cooper (1991, 1994, 1997, 1998) was an advocate for a greener outdoor education through the 1990s and he argued that outdoor education could make an important contribution to educating for sustainability. After an extensive historical review of outdoor education in the UK, Nicol (2002a, 2002b, 2003) argued that outdoor education can contribute to sustainability education, sustainable living and environmental education. However, to achieve this outcome he called for some major transformations to the traditional outdoor education commonly practised in the UK. He encouraged outdoor education leaders to develop programs that: challenge existing social norms; address relationships between ourselves and the world we inhabit; and produce an aesthetic, cognitive, and action response. A number of authors have called for a more critical consideration of outdoor education theory and practice, particularly in the light of this shift towards a greener outdoor education. Brookes (2002, 2003) called for outdoor education to be more responsive to local situations and to pay careful attention to particular regions, communities, and their histories. He was critical of approaches to outdoor education theory, in Australia at least, which try to eliminate or discount differences between societies and communities, cultural differences, and geographical differences. Likewise, Stewart (2004) was critical of some outdoor Traditional adventure activities in outdoor environmental education 32 education practices that seek to develop human-nature relationships or connect with nature. He contended that, While the idea is commendable, without consideration or acknowledgement of the place, culture, context or situation of an experience it could be argued that this is another form of colonialism, or neocolonialism perhaps. (p. 3) Stewart’s (2004) concern was that despite the good intentions of some authors (see Martin, 1999; Martin & Thomas, 2000; Thomas & Thomas, 2000) the approaches they describe to help participants to connect with nature, may actually end up subjugating nature. This debate is beyond the scope of this paper, but discussion about environmental content in this paper is understood to refer to non-colonialist approaches to learning about particular regions, communities, and their histories. A place for adventure in outdoor environmental education? Nicol (2002b) argued that the rationale for much outdoor education in the UK had grown out of accepted practice and often lacked a clearly articulated philosophical foundation. He found that debate about the content and process of outdoor education often “proceeds in defence of what has always been done,” reinforcing the status quo and limiting the possibility of creating a “visionary pedagogical endeavour” (p. 90). Nicol (2002b) explains that the traditional, adventurous, outdoor pursuits represent one of the two main traditions in outdoor education and that, “in the absence of stated philosophical underpinnings and empirical evidence it is clear that outdoor education has developed, to some extent, as a series of practical activities” (p. 89). In a discussion about outdoor education in New Zealand, Zink (2003) suggested “there are a number of things working to privilege pursuits based activities over other forms of outdoor education experiences” (p. 61). These influences include the high profile of adventure, the emphasis placed on personal outcomes, and the increased focus on risk and safety management. Zink encouraged a more critical consideration of outdoor education content. As long as we keep asking questions about the outcomes of outdoor education associated with personal development, challenge, risk and safety we will continue to get information that confirms and supports . . . a pursuits focus of outdoor education. (Zink, 2003, p. 60) Brookes (2002) observed that the UK traditions of activity based outdoor pursuits have influenced and shaped outdoor education practice in Australia even though some of the pursuits are not obvious responses to local landscapes. Lugg (2004) concurred that Australian outdoor education programs have been shaped by northern hemisphere traditions and that there is an absence of robust educational rationales for conducting some activities. She encouraged practitioners to question whether adventure activities can be framed and taught primarily for environmental education goals and whether some educational activities are more appropriate for environmental education purposes than others. Payne (2002) also argued that the adventure pursuits, central to much outdoor education practice in Australia, have not received due critique in relation to their appropriateness within critical outdoor environmental education. Preston (2004) expressed concerns that adventure activities such as rock climbing and whitewater paddling allow the environment to become the backdrop to the activity encouraging students to focus their attention on the activity and themselves rather than the place. Some authors have made genuine attempts to resolve the apparent tension between adventure activities and outdoor environmental education, and in the process, addressing the dichotomy that some have created. In the early 1990s, Cooper (1991) encouraged outdoor centres to question the importance they place on activities and to consider whether they are an end in themselves or whether they are a vehicle for other learning. However, Cooper (1994) also suggested that “direct contact with the environment, particularly in challenging situations, can be inspirational and lead to feelings of belonging or oneness with the earth” (p. 12). Thomas and Thomas (2000) provided some suggestions on how moving water paddling could be redefined as a way of: exploring specific riverine environments; knowing nature; and developing human-nature relationships. Cooper (1997) also provided a summary of activities which have potential to contribute to certain learning outcomes in outdoor education, but the claims are not grounded in any empirical research. There have been two empirical studies that considered the place of outdoor activities in environmental education. The first study (Hanna, 1995) explored the similarities and differences in wilderness knowledge, attitudes and behaviour for participants in adventure programs and participants in an ecology education program. The quasi-experimental, longitudinal study used a pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test with a self-selected sample from four programs. It found that the ecology education programs demonstrated more positive changes over time in the participants’ basic ecological knowledge, minimal impact knowledge, wilderness issue attitude,