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.