My Personal Philosophy

Me Sky Diving

Philosophy

Adventure Education is well known for its use in personal development through outdoor experiences (Priest & Gass, 1997). This progression in personal development can be seen by facilitators but is rarely evidenced. Adventure Education is taken in and learnt by the use of soft skills and hard skills. Hard skills are the technical aspects of each activity, for example, tying knots for climbing, specific strokes for kayaking, skills that can be easily taught through the use of instruction. Soft skills are recognised as the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills (Priest & Gas, 1997) instilled in people as they grow, for example, effective communication, the ability to work as a team, honesty, integrity etc (Mitchell, Pritchett & Skinner, 2013). I believe that the outdoor adventure world has the ability to develop on many of these soft skill areas and many more if carried out appropriately and effectively.

In 1941 Kurt Hahn and others developed the first outward bound programme, hoping that education in the right form would instil qualities that would ‘better’ young people (Smith, 1997). This idea of bettering people through the use of Outdoor Education has been taken and adapted in many outdoor centres, whether these centres feel they have the skills to instil these soft skills or not. As  an instructor, I have run sessions whereby I only teach the hard skills as I feel these are the easier skills to teach and personally would not know where to begin with instilling soft skills in an individual. However as an outdoor facilitator it is our responsibility to provide environments where participants are able to learn and use the outdoors to help aid in personal growth. By providing the right environment you, as an outdoor facilitator are able to create an area where people are able to communicate effectively, work as a team and be honest with fellow team members; thus working on the soft stills (Smith, 1997). However, for so many outdoor facilitators this does not come naturally. This is where we as the instructors need to assess the needs of the group, work with them on these areas and try not to carry the individuals through the experience but get them to work together to get through it. By letting them to be incontrol, you shift the responsibility and allow for groups to work together and rely on themselves and each other to complete the task.

A model known as the Comfort Zone Model is spoken about within the Adventure Education literature.  A quote by Priest and Gass (1997) sums up the pedagogical approach employed in Adventure Education, 

To maximize safety, adventure professionals structure risk in a manner that causes participants to perceive it as being enormously high, while in actuality it is much lower than perceived and more acceptable as a medium for producing functional change and growth. By responding to seemingly insurmountable tasks, participants often learn to overcome self-imposed perceptions of their capabilities to succeed. (Priest & Gass, 1997, p. 17)

Figure 1. Examples of different Comfort Zone Models, showing that people can be different depending on the situations.

The model is split into three sections: comfort zone, growth and learning zone and Panic zone. The comfort zone in the middle, which is where an individual feels most safe and where most of us operate our day-to-day lives from. Although by definition it is the place we feel most comfortable, we are unable to progress and build upon skills when in the comfort zone, as it consists of the abilities and skills we already do easily (Sandler, 2011; Brown, 2008). It is when we move to the growth and learning zone when we can really build on our skills and abilities within a task. The skills that are just out of our reach when in the comfort zone are located in this zone. They are neither so far away that we fall in to the panic zone but not to close that they are too easy and fall into the comfort zone. The final zone within this model is the panic zone. This is where an individual will become too anxious about the situation they are in and are no longer thinking about what they are doing and panic (Sandler, 2011; Brown, 2008). When in this zone activities are seen as being so tough that individuals does not know how to approach them. People normally feel uncomfortable and discouraged when in this zone and, like the comfort zone, individuals are unable to make progress in this zone (Sandler, 2011; Brown, 2008). 

From experience I have been in the panic zone when skiing in my final year of university, when one of my lecturers decided to take us all down a red run which we were all capable of doing; however when I was at the top I suddenly could not move. I had slid down probably only 3 metres and I could not turn to carry on down. I was STUCK unable to move, so scared I could not listen to what she was saying I was too focused on the fact I was so frightened; it was only when I totally relaxed and just went for it I turned and went down. I ended up falling and sliding down but I did it with a smile on my face and realised it was nowhere near as bad as I had made it out to be and my lecturer was right in that I was capable of getting down it, whether that was on my skis or on my ass I made it down. As outdoor facilitators it is our duty to be able to assess each individual’s level of perceived risk; by doing this we ensure that optimal learning will take place within the growth and learning zone.

Alex Honnold Free Climbing  - Huge Comfort Zones.

The comfort zone model is not suggesting that individuals must become stressed or uncomfortable for learning to take place; however individuals should find healthy risks in what they are doing and push themselves to learn and achieve. Each individual will have different thresholds for each zone as can be seen as an example in Figure 1. It can also differ depending on the situation.  

I believe that the comfort zone model is a good tool for outdoor facilitators to use when working with groups or different abilities and confidence levels as it challenges an individual to step outside their comfort zone and see what they are really capable of, within a healthy acceptable risk environment, ending with them building upon themselves (soft skills), which is what outdoor facilitators intend to achieve (along with the hard skills).

I believe that if there were classes in building upon soft skills and teaching soft skills, they would be hugely beneficial in the work place. However, I think it is our (outdoor facilitators) responsibility to provide the right environments, may they be artificial or natural, to allow individuals to build on personal development. However, in the end it is up to the individual themselves to determine what they really want to gain from adventure, whether it is hard skills or soft skills.

References

Brown, M. (2008) Comfort Zone: Model or Metaphor. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 21(1), 3-12.

Mitchell, G.W., Pritchett, C.C.  & Skinner, L.B. (2013). The Importance of the integration of soft skills into the curriculum as identified by MBA students. Academy of Business Research Journal, 2(17). 87-103.

Priest, S. & Gass, M.A. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. 2nd Edition, USA: Human Kinetics.

Sandler, S. (2011). The Three Zones Everyone Should Know About.  Available at: http://sethsandler.com/productivity/3-zones/ (Accessed: 18^th April. 2015).

Smith, M.K. (1997) Kurt Hahn, Outdoor learning and adventure education. Available at:http://infed.org/mobi/kurt-hahn-outdoor-learning-and-adventure-education/ (Accessed: 21 March 2015).