Transfer within Adventure and Everyday life

The ability to transfer skills is important in any situation. Using a good experience from one environment and being able to transfer that into an area where one is not as confident and being introverted, can allow them to open up and feel more comfortable in everyday life. This is better known as contextual transfer, where assimilating good experiences from one environment can be transferred into a different context.

Being more experienced adventure facilitators, we should know that this concept is fundamental. However, the research behind it is not as well grounded as that of experiential learning and the comfort zone, although there is plenty out there.

It is often forgotten that soft skills are just as important as hard skills, Phipps and Swiderski (1990) state that it is no longer acceptable to just have hard skills nowadays. Examples of hard skills are as navigating via map reading or being skilled at using certain bits of equipment. Many schools offer programs to their pupils like the Duke of Edinburgh award and afterwards international projects including World Challenge. Both with the idealisation that the skills learnt from these programs can be transferred into everyday life.

A study by Stott and Hall (2003) depicted 20 personal skills and 15 social skills that can be improved on during an expedition. Using 60 young adults (16-20 years old), they found that 60% of the personal and 40% of the social skills significantly improved after the expedition. The participants rated themselves higher after the expedition. There may be some limitations with self-assessment, however you can doubt an increase in self-esteem, with them believing that their skills have increase.

There are 3 different ways that learning is transferred as stated by Priest and Gass (1997), these are: Specific, non-specific and Metaphoric.

Specific is used for hard skills with a direct application, for example using a clove hitch from sailing and using it when climbing.

Non-specific is generally where behaviors and principles are transferred to the new context.   

And finally Metaphoric is closest to just soft skills. Where the skills learnt in an adventure setting are transferred into an everyday setting. Naming it metaphoric to me is almost giving it an area of interpretation. Allowing the learner to understand and interpret the skill before any transfer takes place. Although this may cause some misinterpretation.

Even though studies have been done, still asking if transfer has occurred is not good enough (Perkins and Salomon, 1992). It may be often thought that the occurrence of transfer just happens. However, it doesn’t always occur.  So by understanding conditions in which transfer takes place.

The first condition consists of thorough and diverse practice. This is substantial performance within a variety of differing contexts (Luria, 1976). The second condition is explicit abstraction. Promoting the appreciation for underlying principles. The third condition is that of active self-monitoring. Ones self-reflection for exploring each individual thinking process. The fourth is arousing mindfulness so it is making sure of alertness. As not allowing for the use of reactive, passive, automatic and mindless activity. Then finally, the fifth condition consists of using a metaphor or analogy. Then knowledge can transfer from the original environment to the new environment, ultimately allowing it to be understood better.

I feel that transfer can happen naturally but its needs careful consideration by the facilitators. It should be an area that is not completely focused on as the clients are there for the activity. However, not forgetting about it and keeping it in the back of the mind to see if there is any change along the way.

References and future readings:

Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Perkins, D. & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of Learning. In: International Encyclopaedia of Education, Second Edition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Phipps, M., Swiderski, M. (1990). The “Soft” Skills of Outdoor Leadership. In: Miles, J.C., Priest, S. Adventure Education. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Inc. 221-230.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1993). Using metaphors and isomorphs to transfer learning in adventure education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10(4), 18-23.

Stott, T., Hall, N. (2003). Changes in Aspects of Students’ Self-reported Personal, Social and Technical Skills During a Six-week Wilderness Expedition in Artic Greenland. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 3 (2): 159-169.

Self-esteem: The use of an Adventure Environment to optimize self-esteem.

In life there are numerous areas that can effect how we look back on ourselves. Whether it is how we feel around others, how we think about our own image or relationships at home. These are part of a greater concept known as ‘Self-esteem’. However, it is still difficult to understand how to improve this.

Firstly we need to understand what self-esteem is. It has been described as the difference between what the individual wishes to achieve and what the individual actually achieves (James, 1890). It has also said to be one of the most important elements of school pupils’ psychological wellbeing. In some cases it has been said that working on self-esteem has not be done enough in the adventure environment. However, Priest and Gass (2005) have shown extensive research that enhancements in self-esteem have happened in an environment rather than in a didactic situation.

It has been said that interactions between adults and youths today happens less; as there has been an increase in single parent house holds and due to budget cuts by the government, schools have been unable to meet the needs of their students.

This leads to more and more children going to adventure and wilderness therapy camps, who aim to create more opportunities for the children so that they can learn and adapt to new environments, therefore gaining more self satisfaction. These programs aim to increase self-esteem, refection, risk taking and social experiences (Bandenoch, 1984).

In these sessions, the facilitator should aim to make the tasks cooperative and not competitive, as the aims are to build self-esteem. Competitive sessions will always result in having a “loser”. Winning may build on ones self-esteem however the “loser’s” self-esteem is likely to drop. Whereas, if the facilitator utilises a cooperative task, the sense of achievement can be enough to increase self-esteem.

Finding a session with enough perceived risk for participants with lower self-esteem, so they feel the challenge but the facilitator knows the actual risk of the activity could be focused on less but not forgotten. An obstacle course can be a good example of this. These courses often need to be competed by working in teams. This increases social interactions, which is a skill needed in everyday life (Moote, 1997).

Although traditional therapy has its place and works for many people, people react to therapy in different ways or don’t react to it at all. This is where adventure therapy can come in. A recent study by Crisp & Hinch (2004) took 39 adolescents that had not been responding to traditional therapy. A significant amount of them (36) were ‘at risk’. After sessions in adventure therapy there was a reduction in mental heath symptoms and an increase in self-esteem.

It seems that from literature reviewed that allowing a person with lower self esteem complete something which they may perceive is hard and risky in an adventure setting has made a significant impact on their confidence and therefore increasing their self-esteem. 

References and Further readings:


Bandenoch, 1984, In. Harper, N.J. A mixed methods examination of family involvement in adolescent wilderness therapy. Minnesota University.

Crisp, S.J.R. and Hinch, C., 2004. Treatment effectiveness of wilderness adventure therapy: a comprehensive evaluation. Melbourne: Neo psychology publications.

James (1890). (cited in Bunyan, P. 2005. Towards the Measurement of Social Self-Esteem in the Adventure Environment. University of Southampton: unpublished PHD thesis.)

Moote, J.R., Woodarki, G.T., and John. S., 1997. The acquisition of life skills through adventure activities and programs. Adolescence, 32(125), pp.143.


Priest, A. and Gass, M.A. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming (2nd Ed.) Champaign IL. Human Kinetics.

Experiential Education

Experiential Education (EE) can be thought as an important approach within the theoretical tradtion of adult education in Europe, America and Australia (Miettinen, 2000). It can be seen as a philosophy of the process of learning that happens through an event of an experience (Itin, 1999).

EE can be thought of one of the oldest forms of learning. It is a more hands on and direct learning experience. Whether the experience is good or bad, enjoyed or not it is likely that learning can still occur from the experience. John Dewey outlined that its likely that everyone can learn from an experience, and that individuals will have different responses even if the situation is exactly the same (Neill, 2005)

The interaction between student and facilitator is very important. The facilitator needs to understand that on style of teaching that works for one student may not work for another, i.e. everyone responds differently. Kolb (1984) came up with a 4 stage process model called the Experiential Learning Cycles displayed in figure 1 below

Figure 1. Experiential Learning cycle Theory with learning styles (McLeod, 2010)

Kolbs four stage learning cycle theory is compiled of 4 main stages; Concrete experience, this can be the feeling side of the learning. This is on a perception continuum with Abstract conseptualisation, the thinking side of it.  The other continuum (Processing) includes, Active experimentation (doing) and Reflective Observation (watching). For learning to take place, all the stages must be completed. The theories stages are fixed, a learner can start an experience at any stage but a full cycle has to be complete before the experience can allow for development of the learner (McLeod, 2010).

Figure 2. children in experiential learning during a team building exercise.

There are four main learning styles that mesh into the stages of learning. These distinct styles are: Accommodating; Diverging; Assimilating; and Converging as seen in figure 1.  Depending on the learning style, may depend on how the student may undertake the task, this in turn can change the experiences the individual makes. This agrees with Dewey’s philosophy of the topic in how individuals will respond differently to the same experience. Kolb can back this by suggesting that individuals prefer different learning styles, this may be because of past experiences.

It is important that the facilitator can allow for a range of teaching methods, as it has been discussed earlier. It is still important for them to have clear roles and purposes (Allison, 2003). With them being able to strive for a flexible approach, they need to account for the significant risks that come with this. Wurdinger (1997) and Ringer (2002) have both stated that adventure and risk are joined at the hip.

“It is necessary to take the risk to feel the impact of events in order to learn from them” (Ringer 2002)

It is clear that EE is an important factor for the development of individuals. The Facilitator needs to work with the student, as learning does not just happen. Allowing for the student to explore a little to aid their learning experience.  From this the facilitator needs to structure their sessions to allow for this, however leaving the session completely unstructured can do the opposite.

Reference and Further readings.

Allison, P. (2003). Key principles: Trust, risk and learning. In S. Wurdinger & J. Steffan (Eds.). Developing challenge course programs for schools (pp. 17–29). Iowa: Kendall Hunt.

Itin, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the Philosophy of Experiential Education as a Vehicle for  Change in the 21st Century. The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91-98.

McLeod. S., (2010). Kolb - Learning Styles. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html. Last accessed 09 May 2013.

Neill. J., (2005). John Dewey, the Modern Father of Experiential Education. Available: http://www.wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialDewey.html. Last accessed 09 May 2013.

Smith. M. K., (2002). Paulo Freire: dialogue, praxis and education. Available: http://infed.org/mobi/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/. Last accessed 09 May 2013.

A Review of existing Adventure Education Literature, and the links between Theory and Practice.

Project One - Literature Review

The comfort zone is a model found widely in many areas of adventure education literature (Exeter, 2001; Luckner & Nadler 1997; Prouty, Panicucci & Collinson, 2007). The model is based on placing people into an uncomfortable or stressful situation to overcome hesitation or fear (Brown, 2008). By pushing people towards the edge of their comfort zone allows them to learn and gain better experiences to expand the size of their ‘comfort zone’ and grow as a person. However I feel its more about  the person making the competence jump that can be associated with fear.

Figure 1. The Comfort Zone Model

Luckner and Nadler (1997) depict a ‘groan zone’, which is when a person is pushed towards the outer limits of their comfort zone and start to feel uncomfortable or unfamiliar. The idea is that as the individual starts to overcome the feelings of anxiousness and self-doubt, whilst they are succeeding then they move to the growth zone. As adventure facilitators, we are able to safely do this by creating a high perceived risk situation but with low actual risk. Leberman & Martin, (2003) and Zink & Leberman, (2001) state that adventure professionals structure risk in such a way that causes the participants to think there is high risk, whereas the actual risk is minimal. This in turn it able to produce growth within the person.

The model should not be taken too literally. It is not exactly a black and white model through which the performers develop the instant they move from the their comfort zone. It can be opposed with what Davis-Berman & Berman (2002) explain; that is it possible for the greatest personal growth to be achieved when the participant is in a safe and comfortable area.

 Figure 2. The Adventure Paradigm

However, the similarity of this model, to that of Martin and Priest’s (1986) Adventure paradigm is uncanny. Although the models outlines are different, they both keep to a similar idea. They both rely on risk being one of the key factors. This theory depicts that if the ‘Risk’ and the performers ‘competence’ are balanced, then learning is likely to occur. If they are unmatched, too risky or to dull then ‘Peak Experience’ will not occur. Too much risk and the participant will fall into the misadventure or disaster zone. This is comparable to Panicucci’s ‘Panic Zone’.

Brown states that there are no supporting theories that define where comfort zone originates from is incorrect. As I have discussed that there are similarities with comfort zone and the adventure paradigm, which are too obvious to put to the side.
In the end, facilitation in the growth and development of individuals will always happen. However using the correct method is a necessity to promote learning in participants. I do believe that placing people into a stressful environment or a 'stretching' situation' can help develop an individual by encouraging a jump in competence, rather than pushing their fear. Mistakes will happen and learning doesn’t happen without them. The key factor is to correctly facilitate an acceptable amount of risk in the appropriate situation for the individual so that they can experience the growth/learning zone or peak experience.   

References and Further Reading:

Brown, M. (2008). Comfort Zone: Model or Metaphor? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 12, 3-12.

Davis-Berman, J., & Berman, D. (2002). Risk and Anxiety in Adventure Programming. Journal of Experiential Education. 25, 305-310.

Exeter, D. (2001). Learning in the outdoors. London: The Outward Bound Trust.

Leberman, S., & Martin, A. (2003). Does pushing comfort zones produce peak learning experiences? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(1), 10-19.

Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1997). Processing the Experience: Strategies to Enhance and Generalise Learning. Kendall Publishing Company.

Martin, P. & Priest, S. (1986). Understanding the Adventure Experience. Journal of Adventure Education. 3, 18-21.

Prouty, D., Panicucci, J., & Collinson, R. (Eds.) (2007) Adventure Education: Theory and Applications. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Zink, R., & Leberman, S. (2001). Risking a debate - refining risk and risk management: A New Zealand case study. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 50-57.