The Development of Self Efficacy and Leadership through Adventure Education and Outdoor Adventure

1. The Development of Self Efficacy and Leadership through Adventure Education and Outdoor Adventure By: Matt Carroll ESS 777 Dr. Steffen

2. Adventure Education • Adventure education involves traditional indoor/outdoor activities, as well as pursuits that apply stress or challenge to the participants. Examples of some activities are group games, climbing wall, mountain biking, ropes course, and orienteering (Rohnke, 1989).

3. Adventure Education Continued • The defining characteristic of adventure education is that a conscious and overt goal of the adventure is to expand the self, to learn and grow and progress toward the realization of human potential (Miles & Priest cited in Hopkins & Putnam, 1998).

4. Outdoor Education • Outdoor education is students having multiple opportunities to immerse themselves in local environments and to come to know these outdoor environments- and themselves through this experiencing- in intimate and personal ways. To hopefully build connections with these places from the ‘inside-out’ rather than as a spectator looking in (The Journal of Physical Education, 2007). • Outdoor education is one that humbly weaves together activity, relationships and the environment in ways that students ‘know’ and care enough about the environments they inhabit to be able to actively contribute to their ongoing sustainability (The Journal of Physical Education, 2007).

5. Self Efficacy • Self-efficacy refers to personal judgments of one’s capability to act in specific situation that may contain novel, unpredictable, and potentially stressful encounters. Self-efficacy theory has provided a conceptual framework utilized by many fields to understand behavior and to explain success and/or continued participation in a variety of domains (Bandura, 1977).

6. Self-Concept • The self is a slippery and difficult concept. The self is not something ready made, but something in continuous formation through choice of actions (Deway cited in Hopkins & Putnam, 1998). • Self –concept is the way in which individuals perceive themselves in relation to the world around them (Rogers cited in Hopkins & Putnam, 1998).

7. Outdoor Leadership • Outdoor leadership is an area within experiential education that involves purposefully taking individuals/groups into the outdoors for: recreation or education; teaching skills; problem solving; ensuring group/individual safety; judgment making; and facilitating the philosophical ethical, and esthetic growth of participants (Ewert, 1983).

8. Goals of Outdoor Leadership • It includes: helping the individual or group identify goals and objectives; utilizing specific action to achieve those goals; creating the opportunities for learning ; and training new or less experienced outdoor instructors and leaders (Ewert, 1983).

9. Adventure Education and Outdoor Education build Self-Efficacy & Leadership • Parle (1986) and Matthai (1973) demonstrated that Outward Bound programs had positive effects on adolescents’ confidence in themselves and their ability to act successfully in a variety of challenging situation. • Hattie et al. (1997) found adventure programs had a diverse array of effects on self-concept, locus of control and leadership. • These studies have revealed that self-efficacy has a positive impact in individual success, confidence, and future development (Bandura, 1977a, 1986).

10. Adventure Education and Outdoor Education Manufacture Self-Efficacy & Leadership (continued) • The degree of leadership development is a function of active participation in a variety of outdoor-related activities such as classes, workshops, personal experiences, reading, leadership responsibilities, and past outdoor-related jobs (Cain & McAvoy, 1990, Ford & Blanchard, 1985; Green, 1990).

11. Findings: • Larson, (2007) had findings that were mixed based on the relationship of the adventure program and self concept of adolescents with behavioral issues. In this study Significant Differences within experimental groups were the same on several measures of self concept. • Method: The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSCS) was used developed by Piers and Harris (1964). • Improvements & Limitations: further research on adventure programs will produce more consistent outcomes and understanding. The age group of 12-14 shows to be very fragile and further self efficacy building and research should be examined to find what best suits or works for this age group.

12. Findings: • Bunting & Witt, (2006): Two models were compared in an adventure program. Challenge by Choice (CbC) and Inviting Optimum Participation(IOP). Results showed a slight statistical advantage in favor IOP. • Method: Experience sampling method (ESM) surveys were taken pre & post by the participants scoring on a Likert scale • Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also used in comparing CbC and IOP. • Improvements & Limitations: More studies comparing the two models would be beneficial. A longer study comparing the two models to see if the responses favor the model inviting optimum participation

13. Findings: • Koesler & Propst, (1998) had findings that showed significant effect of the treatment group on immediate and long-term self-efficacy. Other notable results showed there are gender differences with processing. • Method: was a treatment and control group taking surveys pre and post. The treatment group did another survey a year later to see if results sustained • Improvements and limitations: test the control group more than once. More research should look into gender differences over time. A study on feedback could also be beneficial

14. Findings: • Benshoff & Glass, (2002) study showed there was a significant increase of 4.35% in perceived group cohesion. It also showed race, gender, and age did not affect their perception of group cohesion. • Method: The pre and post test was composed of the Group Cohesion Evaluation Questionnaire (GCEQ). • Improvements and Limitations: Looking into the impact of race, gender, and age should be researched within challenge courses. Studies looking at the sequencing of events could provide insight. A longer study rather than one day should be done.

15. Findings: • Furman, Gookin, at el., (2008) findings showed that participants felt the most confident about learning Outdoor skills 1st, Leadership 2nd, Judgment 3rd, Small Group Behavior 4th, Communication 5th, and Environmental awareness 6th. • Method: Survey based on a Likert scale measuring the 6 target outcomes. • Improvements and Implications: Students answered the survey based on how they believed they learned compared to actual data results. Programs need to understand how students learn to maximize their experiences

16. Findings: • Louie & Wong, (2007) studies showed that the age range of 18 years and up scored higher in self-efficacy, and etc. Peer relationships was the highest domain scored. The most popular choice of length was 3 days 2 nights. Counseling and trust activities were the participants favorite. The mean confidence score was higher in men • Method: was a self-completed questionnaire based off a Likert scale at the end of the participants experience. • Improvements and Limitations: More studies should look into self-efficacy of individuals under 18 yrs. Studies should look into what are the most effective activities to build self-efficacy among participants.

17. Findings: • Jordan & Rilling, (2007) findings show one common trend was that leaders preferred a co-leader to have the same skills as themselves. The highest valued trait category was Wilderness-Power Leaders. • Method: Q-Methodology was created to test leaders based off personal interviews, written narratives, rating scales, and etc. • Improvements and Limitations: Future studies should examine a larger group with a bigger geographic location to find different leadership styles. Possibly using another model.

18. Findings: • Arthur-Banning & Sibthorp, (2004) results show that Perceived Personal Empowerment & Perceived Learning Relevance do have significance with each other. • Method: Two instruments were used the Characteristics of the Experience Scale (CES) and the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ). Given as a pre and post to the participants • Limitations and Improvements: More studies in Adventure Education should look into personal empowerment. Sample size was pretty small, a bigger age range, and length in program could help.

19. Findings: • Ewert& Hayashi, (2006) study showed that EQi: S was .81, MLQ was .79, OLEUT was .89, and MCSD was .77. In the category of social desirability there was no statistically significant relationships found. Emotional intelligence was compared between the outdoor leaders and general population. The outdoor leaders score was lower than the general population. emotional intelligence data had a .05 significance level. They were the relationship between intrapersonal skills and personal outdoor experience, general mood and personal outdoor environment experience, and the total emotional quotient and professional outdoor activity experience. Total outdoor experience was in relation to intrapersonal skills. Outdoor leaders with more experience have a higher level of emotional intelligence. • Method: The questionnaires used were BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (EQi: S), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X short), Outdoor Leader Experience Use History (OLEUH), and the Marlowe-Crone Social Desirability Scale (MCSD). The EQi: S is 51 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale. The MLQ5X has 45 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale. The OLEUH is an empirically based measurement tool. • Limitations and Improvements: Further studies should be done to determine how leadership programs build emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Studies should also look into how the leaders with emotional intelligence and transformational leadership develop those traits in students.

20. Findings: • Hough & Paisley, (2008) found that the paired sample t-test showed no difference between scores of the treatment and control group. The HLM model revealed that there was significance in the treatment group of 48%. • Method:Two scales were used in this study. The first was The Perceived Leisure Control Scale. The second was 5 item modified version of the Perceived Leisure Control Scale. The researchers used two different ways to analyze data, the paired sample t-test and hierarchical linear model (HLM). • Limitations & Improvements:Researchers should learn how to effectively use HLM. Implications state that the need for professionally trained staff in adventure. There was also a very small sample size.

21. Findings: • Golby & Sheard, (2006) found that there was no major statistical significance to their study. • The Outdoor Adventure Education (OAE) did show slight improvement as a whole in the 6 positive psychological measures. The OAE program did reveal a higher score in the Hardiness measure for second year students compared to first year students. It was also noted that the first year students in the OAE program declined in the Hardiness measure. • Method: A different questionnaire was used in each one of the 6 measures pre and post test. • Limitations and Improvements:The researchers suggested that a longer timeframe would be beneficial with a wider range of measures. More research comparing self-efficacy between experienced and non-experienced participants would be helpful.

22. Findings: • Gookin, Paisley, at el. (2007) found the highest perceived gains were within the Outdoor Skills Development. The other five target areas of development had increases in perceived gains as well. Researchers noticed the highest gains were within the participants without previous expedition experience. It was also noted that participants older in age had a higher pretest score in the categories of leadership, communication, and small group behavior. Course length was a significant factor in developing characteristics. The longer the course the more they learned. Researchers also stated that by giving participants ownership in what they are doing increases characteristics of the six targets. • Method: The NOLS Outcome Instrument (NOI) was created and used in this study. The NOI is similar to a ten point Likert scale with the different subscales for each of the six targeted categories. • Limitations and Improvements:The pretest and posttest was confusing to some of the participants to fill out. Limitations were within the development of the testing model. Using a different testing model may prove to be helpful.

23. Findings: • Bartley, (1988) found that leadership in the 6 course outcomes was not supported with results of study. Variable other than leadership style had effects on students’ course outcomes. Instructor personality and soft skill training had a small significant direct effect on course outcomes. Gender of the leader also had an effect on leadership style. • Method: Pre and post course tests were used. Outdoor Bound Impact Study (OBIS), Bemnaire Personality Inventory, the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire, form XII (LBDQ-XII), and soft skills Background Questionnaire. • Limitations and Improvements: Adventure education programs should develop a soft skills program. Additional soft skill assessment methods are needed. Testing the students pre program to find their greatest needs and match them up with leaders strong in those areas. Future research on gender differences in leadership qualities.

24. Methods of Measurement • The majority of the researchers use a pre and post test to find data from the participants • Most surveys are commonly used or created pertaining to Adventure Education • Within these surveys the common scoring procedure with the participants is based off a Likert scale

25. Going Forward • There are many components that beneficial to developing a quality Adventure Education Program • Understanding key factors like leadership and self-efficacy will make it better for everyone related in the field. • When leadership is understood and developed for participants they are able to grow in their experiences • When self-efficacy is built upon for participants they are encouraged to do more and take on more challenges increasing their experience and leadership

26. Going Forward (continued) • If group leaders know how to build self-efficacy and leadership with more quality then more participants are benefiting and enjoying their experiences • When researchers understand concepts of leadership and self-efficacy then they are better able to conduct studies, fine tune data models, and create a more meaningful structure of events in the Adventure Education curriculum.

27. References: Arthur-Banning, S., & Sibthorp, J. (2004). Developing Life Effectiveness Through Adventure Education: The Roles of Participant Expectations, Perceptions of Empowerment and Learning Relevance. Journal of Experiential Education, 29 (1), 32-50. Bartley, N.L. (1988). Outward Bound Leadership Model: An Exploratory Study of Leadership Variables. Bradford Papers Annual, (3). Benshoff, J.M., & Glass, J.S. (2002). Facilitating Group Cohesion Among Adolescents Through Challenge Course Experiences. The Journal of Experiential Education, 25, (2) 268-277. Bunting, C.J. & Witt, P.A. (2006). Meaningful Involvement Opportunities in Ropes Course Programs. Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 339-362. Ewert, A., & Hayashi, A. (2006). Outdoor Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Experiential Education, 28, 222-242. Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2006). The Efficacy of an Outdoor Adventure Education Curriculum on Selected Aspects of Positive Psychological Development. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(2), 187-209. Furman, J., Gookin, J., Paisley, & K., Sibthorp. (2008). Student Learning in Outdoor Education: A Case Study From the National Outdoor Leadership School. Journal of Experiential Education, 30, 201-222.

28. References (continued) Gookin, J., Paisley, K., & Sibthorp, J. (2007). Exploring Participant Development Through Adventure-Based Programming: A Model from the National Outdoor Leadership School. Leisure Sciences, 29, 1-18. Hough, M., Paisley, K, (2008). An Empowerment Theory Approach to Adventure Programming for Adults with Disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 89-102. Hung-tak Louie, L., Wing-kin Wong, E. (2007) The Effects of Camp Adventure Programs on Improving Self Concept of Youth Participants in Hong Kong. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation(Hong Kong), 12.   Jordan, D. & Rilling, C. (2007). Important Co-leader Skills and Traits on Extended Outdoor Trips as Perceived by Leaders. Leisure Studies, 26, 193-212. Koesler, R.A., & Propst, D.B. (1998). Bandura Goes Outdoors: Role of Self-Efficacy in the Outdoor Leadership Development Process. Leisure Sciences, 20, 319-344. Larson, B. (2007). Adventure Camp Programs, Self-Concept, and Their Effects on Behavioral Problem Adolescents. Journal of Experiential Education, 29 (3), 313-330.