Historical Influences on Current Conceptual Frameworks of Outdoor Education

Nathaniel E. Johnson

Georgia College & State University

Ask around for a definition of outdoor education and there will be as many answers as persons asked. Some people might think of group development activities, some people of climbing mountains, others of summer camp. Even within the field there are many differing opinions about what outdoor education is and what outdoor education should be. Examination of the three major conceptual frameworks of outdoor education revels a strong relationship with the three major student based organizations that populate the history of outdoor education: Outward Bound, The National Outdoor Leadership School, and Project Adventure. The goals of the major outdoor education organizations of the recent past have shaped the three common conceptual frameworks describing outdoor education today.

The earliest of the three conceptual frameworks comes from Simon Priest, who developed a model in 1987 depicting outdoor education as a tree with two main branches, adventure education and environmental education. Sharing the same trunk, both come from the same roots– in this case representing the experiential learning process. Similarly, the leaves of the tree represent the different outcomes of outdoor education– development of interpersonal, intrapersonal, ecosystemic, and ekistic relationships. In this model of outdoor education, adventure education focuses more on the interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships. Environmental education is then primarily responsible for developing the ecosystemic and ekistic relationships. The two sides of the tree depend on each other, just as the two parts of outdoor education do not exist separately, but exist as a blend of both the branches of the outdoor education tree.

A second conceptual framework of outdoor education is seen in the works of Webb (1999), Horwood (1999), Hirsch (1999) and Gillis and Ringer (1999). In this model (J. Hirsch, personal communication, September 12, 2005), outdoor education is divided into 4 increasingly complex component parts: recreation, education, development and therapy. Each part borrows from the part before it and the parts exist on more of a continuum than separately. The major goal of each part is to effect some sort of change: a change in feeling in the case of a recreational setting; a change in thinking for a educational setting; a change in behavior for a development setting; and a constructive redirection of behavior for a therapeutic setting.

A third conceptual framework is proposed by Dawson, Tangen-Foster, Friese and Carpenter (2002). This model proposes a three-dimensional system for defining wilderness experience programs along a continuum. The first dimension divides programs depending on their setting, wilderness or non-wilderness. The second dimension separates programs by their primary aim: personal growth, education, or therapy and healing. The third dimension looks at whether the program uses wilderness as a classroom or wilderness as a teacher.

When Kurt Hahn founded the Colorado Outward Bound School in 1962 his focus was on education, but in a different sense than was generally understood at the time.  One of Hahn’s quotes helps to explain the reasoning behind his educational methods:

"We believe that it is the sin of the soul to force the young into opinions, but we consider it culpable neglect not to impel every youngster into health-giving   experiences, regardless of their inclinations." (As cited in Richards, 1999, p. 69)

Hahn was not the first to incorporate experiential learning techniques into his curriculum.  Hahn himself openly acknowledged that his philosophies borrowed heavily from earlier individuals: “from Plato, from Dr. Arnold of Rugby, from Eton, from Abbotsholme, from Hermann Lietz, from Fichte and from Wilhelm Meister” (Richards 1999, p. 66). Raiola and O’Keefe (1999) include Comenius, Rousseau and Pestalozzi in their list of influences on the experiential philosophy behind outdoor education.  Hahn, however, existed at a unique time and place where he influenced the future path of outdoor education- both through Outward Bound and through the influence that Outward Bound has had on the other major outdoor education organizations. We can see the influence of Hahn and Outward Bound in the experiential education definition in the frameworks of outdoor education programs.

Hahn and Outward Bound are the original source for many of the categorical definitions now used in the conceptual frameworks. Outward bound has a strong educational element, stemming from the original educational background of Hahn. This education focus can be seen in both the Priest and the Webb, Horwood, Hirsch and Gillis and Ringer framework. The developmental aspect of the conceptual frameworks can also be traced back to Outward Bound and Kurt Hahn. In Priest’s model Outward Bound likely influenced the creation of the adventure education branch with the foci on the interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships.

When reviewing the history of Outward Bound it is natural for The National Outdoor Leadership School to enter into the discussion. NOLS was founded in 1965 by Paul Petzoldt as a training camp for Outward Bound instructors, but soon grew past its conceived size and purpose. The NOLS focus is more on skills and leadership than on personal development. (Bachert, 1999) The different focus of NOLS shows up in the conceptual frameworks as the type of organization that is focused more on recreation in the Webb, Horwood, Hirsch and Gillis and Ringer framework. In the Dawson, Tangen-Foster, Friese and Carpenter model, NOLS has helped to influence the inclusion of the wilderness as a classroom dimension.

Project Adventure grew out of a desire to create an Outward Bound experience in a classroom setting. (Prouty, 1999) The focus of Project Adventure is not on outdoor skills, but on using the methods of outdoor education to further the whole education of students. While Project Adventure has relatively weak ties to the outdoors, it clearly belongs to the outdoor education family.  Project Adventure has influenced the creation of education and development categories in the second model and the inclusion of the non-wilderness category in the third model.

The history of outdoor education is a history of agreement and argument. There has always been an implicit understanding of what outdoor education is about, but there has never been consensus about the explicit definition of outdoor education. The current conceptual frameworks of outdoor education reflect this agreement and argument. All three agree that there are no clear boundaries between the different categories that they try to create, but instead the organization must fall somewhere on a spectrum of possibilities, with multiple categories necessary to be able to clearly delineate between the different objectives of different organizations. These conceptual frameworks do not exist in a vacuum, but have been significantly shaped by the history of the outdoor educational field.  The goals and philosophies of Outward Bound, NOLS and Project Adventure have shaped both the way we conceptualize outdoor education and the way other organizations practice outdoor education. It is important to note that the conceptual frameworks are not entirely based on historical precedent. There is a subjective element to developing a definition of outdoor education: what to include, what to exclude, whether or not that element exists. As the field of outdoor education matures the conceptual frameworks used to describe outdoor education will also change to reflect new influential organizations and new philosophical perspectives.