Talk:Outdoor education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative education, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Alternative education. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Contents 1 Limited Political-Geographical and Social Scope 1.1 Europe 1.2 Australia and New Zealand 1.3 Asia 1.4 Africa 1.5 South America 1.6 North America 2 Theories 3 Question. 4 a narrow view of outdoor education 5 Aims 6 UK section 7 Critical views

[edit] 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)

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!!!

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)

[edit] 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!!!

[edit] Australia and New Zealand

[edit] Asia

[edit] Africa

[edit] South America

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] UK section

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)

[edit] 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)