Finding New Ways: Developing a Co-Constructed Approach to Excursions in Higher Education

Abstract

Background: Outdoor Experiential Education (OEE) in the UK is steeped in tradition. It can be argued that established practices are limiting the ability of outdoor professionals to respond to the global challenges of the modern world through locally relevant ways. Internationally, Higher Education (HE) is also currently subject to considerable challenges and its continued relevance can be gauged through its ability to become meaningful in a rapidly changing and pluralistic world. If the intention is to prepare educators for the future, OEE within HE could benefit from finding new ways. Purpose: We examine the impact of our pedagogical approach to working with international students, developing professional practice informed by one place, set within the context of the needs of the world and framed by the question "what kind of outdoor educator do you want to become?" Methodology/approach: The authors utilize Dewey's concept of occupations as an organizing principle for the curriculum. Four excursions involving 86 students were facilitated. Findings/conclusions: The norms of traditional OEE practices were predominantly overcome and innovative ways of co-creating knowledge emerged. Implications: If outdoor educators develop their own occupation in the context of wider needs, they can become place-responsive as well as continuously open to change.

Building Resilience Through Strengths-Based Learning During Graduate Study Abroad: An Exploratory Study

“…One pedagogical frame often employed is experiential education. College and university faculty have embedded experiential learning pedagogy in the curriculum to facilitate learning outside the classroom (Jordan, Gagnon, Anderson, & Pilcher, 2018; Liang, Caton, & Hill, 2015; Towers & Loyness, 2018). In addition, experiential education principles have been integrated with study abroad curriculum to support student learning (Harper, 2018; Pipitone, 2018; Pipitone & Raghavan, 2017).…”

Reconsidering McKenzie’s Six Adventure Education Programming Elements Using an Ecological Dynamics Lens and Its Implications for Health and Wellbeing

“…It still seems that activities driving programme design and learning outcomes, or what a particular environment offers, is, at best, a secondary concern [30-33]. While place-based approaches are now more readily considered in programming [5] and can be strongly linked with the physical environment [30] and associated health and wellbeing benefits, the overarching default position for most programmes is still based on the notion that activities create cognitive dissonance for learners, which is the best way to meet programme outcomes [3,4]. Little substance has changed in the majority of practices where the focus still lies with novel activities creating a sense of danger and risk, allowing participants to feel physically and psychologically challenged.…”

“…Given the wide participant remit of AEP (including women-only groups, disabled groups and hard-to-reach groups, as well as ages and diversities across the spectrum), it is surprising how little research has been conducted to address the issues raised, though there are exceptions [44][45][46]. Importantly, in more contemporary place-based practices [30], there has been a call for tailoring delivery to reflect group [5,39] or individual needs. However, the practice of activity-focused programmes that are underpinned by how best to exploit resources, such as time, staff and location, continue to dominate.…”

“…Importantly, scholars have also questioned the relevance of the risk-oriented approach to AEP that underpins much of McKenzie's analysis [3,5,28,31,64] and highlights unfortunate cultural and historical assumptions implicit within the original meta-analysis. For example, while the participation of women in the outdoors continues to rise, outdoor leaders remain predominantly male, and programmes are often steeped in male machismo [65].…”

“…The participant's characteristics and capacity for autonomy were also considered important.Underpinning these categories was the notion that effective adventure programme design suggested the inclusion of challenge and risk, for example, opportunities for emotional and social risk. Contemporary evidence suggests AEP is still based on activities designed to emphasise the impact of risk (physical and psychological), with little regard for nature and requirements of participants [2][3][4][5][6]. According to Wurdinger [7], it is risk, danger and uncertainty that differentiate AEP from other activities and impacts on the learning outcomes (see Brown and Beames [3] for a contemporary account of definitional issues).…”