Objective Testing in Soft Skill Facilitation

Through my own personal experiences and reading into the topic of soft skills facilitation, I have gained a vast knowledge about how as an adventure facilitator and educator, I am able to provide an experience that can be much more significant than just an activity session. The skills required to enhance the soft skills of individuals are within the reaches of every facilitator/educator. However, I have found that there are very few readings and items of literature on the topic that detail how it actually occurs.

There are many objective tests which have been carried out which illustrate and look into an individuals own social development and how they have furthered themselves through the use of adventurous and outdoor activities. Some examples of these are; Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966), The Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (Neill, Marsh and Richards, 2001), the Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967) and the Sixteen Personality Factors (Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka, 1970).

The Neill et al (2001) test is a questionnaire that was first developed in Australia in the 1980’s. In this, it was stated that the test takes only a short amount of time and is likely to provide a maximum amount of results. I struggle to agree with this due to believing that for any outcome from the adventure industry to be measured, it would take a prolonged amount of time and would take more than just a simple questionnaire to reveal a ‘maximum’ amount of results. It does however provide a good starting point for further research into the area.

Although each of these methods are formed from valid and trusted sources, I don’t believe that results gained from simple questionnaires could provide as much depth as other methods of research. If a study were to combine the benefits of both qualitative data which is gained from the questionnaires, as well as quantitative data which could be collected through other means, I strongly believe that results would carry much more weight, depth and provide more accurate results.

References:

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., and Tatsuoka, M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. USA: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). Antecedents of Self-Esteem. USA: Freeman.

Neill, J.T., Marsh, H.W. and Richards, G.E. (2001) The Life Effectiveness Questionnaire: Development and Psychometrics. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalised Expectations for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 80 (1), 1-28.

Theories and Concepts - Self Esteem

For a facilitator to be able to enhance the self esteem of outdoor adventure participants it is important to understand the definitions behind the concept of self esteem. 

 

Fox (1998), appears the simplest, explaining the self esteem concept as self identity. However, Campbell (1984) explains self esteem as being ‘the awareness of good possessed by the self’.  However, this depends on what you perceive as being good and that it may in fact be based on socially undesirable qualities, depending on what your own perception of being socially acceptable is. This may differ between individuals and groups of people who follow traits and behaviour associated with a particular group/background.  Elmer (2004) confirms that within self esteem, ‘ethnicity’, ‘social class’, and ‘gender’ are all linked.  Indeed, Branden (1994) highlights that most psychological problems stem from low self esteem. From experience, I concur that I believe people with a low self esteem are less likely to do well in life, compared to those with a higher self esteem.

James (1890) implies that a person must own their own perception of their future success and that self esteem is as a result of ‘dissonance’ between their aspirations and actual achievements. This is in addition to the realisation of any personal success or perceptions of ability and goal setting  (Campbell 1984). To combat this, Branden (1994) explains ‘What determines that level of self esteem is what the individual does’,  going on to say ‘it  is a way of operating day by day, in big issues and small, a way of behaving that is also a way of being,’  implying that self esteem is as a direct result of what people do.

Participants learn through what they do, be it correct or incorrect.   Repetition establishes sound understanding from which an individual can further learn but they need to reflect on their experiences and evaluate their learning to reach their perceived success. It is therefore vital for us, as outdoor practitioners, to provide the correct techniques, information and experiences on which individuals can base their learning.  We can only maximise their self esteem as a result of delivering the correct, high quality techniques, taught in the proper environment, providing they wish to succeed.  We must inspire them with confidence and self belief to enable them to enhance their learning and raise their personal self esteem.

References

Brandon N (1995). The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. The Definitive Work on Self Esteem by the Leading Pioneer in the Field. New York: Bantam Books.

Elmer, N. (2001, cited in Bunyan, 2005). Self-Esteem: The Costs and Causes of Low Self-Worth. York: York Publishing Services.

Fox, (1998 cited in Bunyan, 2005). Advances in the Measurement of the Physical Self. In: J. L. Duda. (Ed). Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology Inc.

James, W (1890).  The Principles of Psychology. Holt. USA

Personal Philosophy of Soft Skills Facitliation

Even before university, facilitating soft skills to both the public and private sectors has been a large part of my life by working and volunteering within the teaching and outdoor/adventure industry. Whether it be teaching swimming or leading an expedition, when working in these settings it is very apparent to the provider that soft skills hold a very sizeable portion of session facilitation. These soft skills can be vital for the overall success of the session for both the provider as well as the participants. This is backed up by Riggins (1986) stating that participants are said to feel better about themselves after being successful and performing well within the challenge that was set before them.

  vs  

Through my placement year and working in the adventure industry, I have seen and heard many companies stating that by taking part in activities and trips, it will change you as a person and improve your soft skills. To a certain degree, I agree with the likes of Dewey (1955) in that through experience, an education is achieved. However, I also believe that an experience would need to take place over a prolonged period of time with a minimum of a few months in order to have any lasting effects on the participant and their soft skills. Reasons for this include ones such as home life. If a child/participants life at home is difficult, a simple weekend away will not have a lasting effect if they are to then return to a place in a downgrading and upsetting lifestyle.

It is well known in the industry that in recent years, the health and safety precautions that have been brought in are starting to dig away at real ‘adventure’ by almost removing any form of risk from these activities. In my personal philosophy, one’s growth in regard to soft skills such as self esteem, confidence and responsibility simply will not take place to the same degree if the participants have none of the ‘real’ adventure/risk feeling to them. When working with a group, I strongly agree with Knight (2011) where he says that measures should be taken to include everyone’s boundaries and keep them happy whilst also keeping the risks that are involved with adventure, instead of getting rid of risk completely.

References:

Dewey, J. (1955). Experience and Education. New York: The MacMillan Company.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Experiences as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Pretice-Hall, Inc.

Knight, S. (2011). Risk & Adventure in Early Years Outdoor Play: Learning from Forest Schools. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Priest, S., and Gass, M.A. (2005) Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Human Kinetics

Riggins, R. D. (1986). Effective leadership in adventure- based education: Setting directions for future research. Journal of Environmental Education. 18 (1). 1-6.

The Comfort Zone - Model or Metaphor?

The Comfort Zone

Does the Comfort Zone work as a way of learning? 

A person’s comfort zone is perceived to be when their skills set and their activities match. Mike Brown (2008) This implies that everyone’s comfort level is different.  Brown(2008) suggests that the Comfort Zone Model, when related to Outdoor Adventure education, is based on the belief that people respond to stressful situations by ‘overcoming their hesitancy and grow’. This implies that all students will respond to being ‘stretched’ under pressure and learn from their experiences by moving out of their comfort zone into the growing /learning area. 

Luckner and Nadler (1997) suggest that for people to learn, they must be pushed to ‘the edge of their comfort zone’ through ‘the use of perceived and actual risk’.  Brown (2002) expresses concern about educators stretching participants too far by ‘engineering situations’ so participants are forced from their comfort zone into the growth zone, thus ‘inventing new activities that are higher, steeper or longer’.

In contrast, Jane Vella(2002) 12 Principles and Practices of Learning contradicts this, suggesting that students learn through ‘Ideas, Feelings and Actions’ and through ‘Safety in the Environment and the Process’.  These contradictions can make a significant impact on the way we teach and the conceived way students learn and experience Adventure Education.

When applied to the workplace, many adventurous outdoor activities give a sense of risk, fear, anxiety and of course a rush of adrenaline which many students may want to experience. However, I have found from experience that moving out of the comfort zone does not necessarily result in learning from the experience itself, indeed it could have the opposite affect and prevent a student from wanting to progress. 

In reality, it is conceivable that a nervous skier, performing out of their comfort zone, may not wish to revisit the experience due to overstretching and being forced into the panic zone, due to the nature of the terrain and a conceived bad experience. They may indeed feel all they have learned is that they do not want to experience it again.  Indeed Leberman and Martin (2003) suggest that peak learning is unlikely to happen when someone is pushed outside of their personal comfort zone. 

 Surely a person should move gradually from one zone to another, steadily expanding their own personal comfort zone.

References:

Brown, M. (2008). Comfort Zone: Model or metaphor? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 12:1, 3 – 12.

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 generalizing learning. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company

Vella, J. (2002) Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach - The Power of Dialog in Educating Adults. John Wiley & Sons Inc. USA, San Francisco.