Experiential Education and Student Development
in
the
Liberal Arts Setting
Jude Hirsch, Mary Jane Phillips & Joseph Pate
The changing face of higher
education in
Student Development
Significant passages in an
individual’s life are marked by change and transition from existing self into
the emergence of a new self. Liberal
arts institutions seek to address these transitions before, during, and after
the college experience. Schlossberg
(1984) suggests three main components of this transition, including approaching
change; taking stock in one’s situation, self, support, and strategies; and
taking charge of the transition which includes moving in, moving through, and
moving beyond. Therefore, programs and
services that seek to support student success must be based on a clear
understanding of student developmental needs throughout this transition, and
the socio-academic environments that impact these needs.
Cognitive-structural development
Cognitive-structural models
explain the student’s ability to use increasingly complex means to analyze and
synthesize information, and understand various paradigms. Most of the cognitive-structural theorists
see development as cumulative and constructive.
Piaget (1952) provided the cornerstone model, even though much of his
work has been modified by later theorists and is focused on the development of
children ages 15 years and younger.
Perry (1981) refined Piaget’s
theory and introduced new stages (which he calls positions) that emphasized
cognitive development into adulthood.
Perry notes that movement through these positions is more a matter of
life experiences than of maturation and not everyone progresses through all of
them. Students entering college
typically begin with dualistic, (black or white) thinking, in which information
is either right or wrong and knowledge comes from external authority figures. Transition from this stage into the next will
bring a view of multiplicity, in which authority figures do not know everything
and all opinions, even one’s own, are just as valid. In addition, students believe absolute truth
is still “out there” at some time in the future. Progression through these two stages will
lead the student to a relativistic mindset in which a student’s opinion needs
to be supported, but knowledge develops in a context that determines the
appropriate support for the opinion.
Finally, the student develops a commitment to relativism, which is no
longer about increasing cognitive complexity, but involves ethical
development. In this position, students
take responsibility for learning and the choices made. Therefore, the student progresses cognitively
through a “position” of dependence to one of autonomy and independence in
regards to synthesizing and analyzing knowledge.
Baxter Magolda
(1992) built on Perry’s work to further understand the cognitive and
intellectual needs of students at this developmental stage. She suggests a student’s use of reasoning
patterns is flexible and context-bound.
According to her, individuals at this stage of development transition
through four main contexts: 1) absolute knowing: believing that knowledge is
certain; 2) transitional knowing: acceptance that some knowledge is uncertain;
3) independent knowing: understanding that knowledge is mostly uncertain, and
the role of a student is to learn how to learn; and 4) contextual knowing:
where the student is capable of constructing knowledge, the legitimacy of
knowledge is based on context, and evidence is required to support the
knowledge that is constructed. Baxter Magolda notes that the fourth stage is most often reached
after the college experience. According
to her theory, males and females often develop in different ways during the
first three stages.
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) further support the idea that there are
differences between the cognitive development of males and females. They believe that women tend to develop
through five stages, which they called perspectives. According to Belenky
and her colleagues, a women’s intellectual development is understood through
the development of her voice. A woman
moves from silence to mindless obedience to authority, into constructed
knowledge in which she is able to integrate subjective and objective knowledge
to gain an authentic voice. The middle
stages of this model are very similar to Perry’s (1981) “positions” noted
above. According to Belenky,
et al., however, women have the additional struggle of moving away from silence
and dependence that has developed culturally within the society around them.
Cognitive-structural models
emphasize the importance of understanding a student’s developmental
progress. It contributes to thinking,
reasoning, analyzing, and understanding the paradigms presented to them
throughout their college experiences. Student’s typically enter college with very absolute, black
and white thinking, and progress toward more independent thinking. This occurs through endeavors, research, and
exploration within the college environment.
Psychosocial development
Psychosocial models
contribute to a fuller understanding of the student. Psychosocial models suggest that personal and
social development progress through stages, with each stage typically including
a set of tasks to be mastered. The
primary focus is on developing skills related to the student’s interactions
with him/herself and others. Like
Piaget, Erickson (1959) sets forth a foundation for other theorists to build
upon. Erickson suggests that individuals
develop competencies to resolve important life conflicts. By the time they enter college, students
would probably be working to resolve the issue of identity and role by
developing a clear and consistent image of self. Next, students attempt to resolve the
conflict between intimacy and isolation through the need to develop intimate
personal relationships. As exemplified
through Erickson’s theory, psychosocial models address transition and change as
opportunities for psychosocial growth.
Arguably, the most
influential theory of student development is that of Chickering
& Reisser (1993), which introduced seven vectors
of psychosocial development. The goal of
Chickering’s initial study was to understand how
students develop a wide array of skills – not just those in the intellectual
realm – so that his college could foster the development of the “whole”
student. The second edition of his
classic, Education and Identity,
updates the realms, called vectors, in which students typically develop.
The first vector focuses on
developing competencies. Here students
acquire confidence in their ability to manage the intellectual, physical, and
interpersonal skills they find important to a sense of self. The next vector demands managing emotions,
and involves being able to recognize and appropriately express feelings. Moving through autonomy toward
interdependence characterizes the next vector, and results in the development
of strong social bonds that are supportive, but that do not include a constant
need for the approval of others.
Students develop mature interpersonal relationships in the fourth
vector. This involves the ability to
appreciate interpersonal and intercultural differences, and to form close and
effective personal relationships.
Students then begin to establish an identity through a process of
developing a stable and consistent view of themselves. This process, however, can vary greatly among
individuals, depending in part on issues such as gender, ethnic background, and
sexual orientation. The sixth vector
involves developing purpose. Students
make decisions about commitments to career field and other areas in life that
are personally meaningful to the individual.
In the final vector, students develop integrity. This involves three “sequential but
overlapping stages” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.51): humanizing values, personalizing
values, and developing congruence.
Students develop values that are more sensitive to the needs of others,
personally meaningful, and balanced between their own and society’s needs.
Psychosocial theories focus
on transitions and the resolution of conflicts that result in individual
growth. The progress of a student
results in a break from dependence in the area of competencies/skills,
relationships, and sense of self.
Success at different stages or vectors builds upon previous successes,
and provides confidence for the individual to continue to move forward. Ultimately, development results in a control
over one’s life and the ability to contribute successfully to society.
Moral-ethical development
Moral development is
generally seen as requiring cognitive-structural and psychosocial developmental
success. The ultimate goal is for a
student to embrace ethical values that are internally driven, as opposed to
externally dictated.
Success in this area results from negotiating conflicts centered on
justice, openness to the ideas of others, finding one’s voice, and using a
process for moral problem solving.
Once again, many theories of
moral development build on Piaget’s work.
Kohlberg (1969, 1971) asserted that the primary value embodied in moral
development is justice, and that the process of decision-making is more important
than the particular decision reached.
Furthermore, he believed that people progress through six stages
sequentially, and not everyone may achieve the later (higher) stages of moral
reasoning. Kohlberg’s first stage is heteronomous morality where what is right is defined by
authority. Following this stage is
individualistic or instrumental morality, where people follow rules when it is
in their best interest to do so. When
the rights of others come into conflict with their own, people will try to
negotiate a fair exchange. Stage three
is known as interpersonally normative morality, in which the main moral effort
is to maintain one’s image as a good person.
Here an individual tries to live up to the expectations of those who are
important and close. The next stage is
social system morality, in which social rules are supposed to apply to everyone
equally, and to be right is to uphold the rules that society establishes. Kohlberg suggests that people can then move
into a stance known as human rights and social welfare morality. In this stage a social system is seen as an
institution that has legitimacy to the extent that it protects the rights and
welfare of all, and there is great importance placed on agreement between
parties. The final stage is morality of universalizable, reversible, and prescriptive general
ethical principles. Here, an
individual’s decisions are based on broad, universal principles that apply to
all situations. All points of view have
equal weight, and the justice of a contract is as important as the fact that it
has been made. The end result is a moral
and ethical individual who respects the point of view of others while using
good judgment in making decisions.
In Kohlberg’s model of moral
development, individuals cannot be in more than one stage of development at a
given point in time. Rest (1986) revised
Kohlberg’s theories and asserted that an individual can be partly in one stage
and partly in another. Rest offers three
components that influence moral development:
moral sensitivity, moral motivation, and moral action. Moral sensitivity implies that the individual
is able to see that a situation involving someone else has moral dimensions
that are important to consider, specifically in identifying possible
alternatives. Moral motivation involves
a conscious decision to follow a moral alternative, and moral action is a
willingness to carry out a moral decision.
King & Kitchener (1990) and Gilligan (1977, 1981) also
revised Kohlberg’s model by developing models of moral judgment from different
perspectives. According to King & Kitchener’s model, there are three levels of
reflection when reasoning. The first is
pre-reflective, in which knowledge is acquired through acceptance of authority
figures, and is absolute and certain.
Quasi-reflective reasoning takes place when knowledge is somewhat
uncertain and it is difficult to know how to go about making judgments. In reflective reasoning, meaning must be
constructed and knowledge understood in relation to the context of that
particular situation.
Gilligan (1977,
1981) posits three levels of moral development, plus the transitions between
each level. Initially, people’s moral
reasoning emphasizes an orientation to individual survival. This phase is very self-centered and isolated
from others. A transition from
selfishness to responsibility is characterized by connections to others who are
trying to be responsible and do the right thing. The next stage, goodness as self-sacrifice,
involves valuing connectedness to the point of being willing to give up one’s
own perspective to allow consensus. The
next transition moves from goodness to truth.
Here, individuals begin to question their willingness to put the needs
of others before their own, and to recognize that their own needs are part of a
whole truth. This culminates in the
morality of nonviolence. The person here
recognizes that morally, self and others are interdependent, and that it is
important to respect both self and others in choosing and supporting
options. Again, individuals move from a
state of blind acceptance to conscious control and awareness of their actions
toward themselves, others, and the world.
The developmental needs of
students, according to moral and ethical models, progress from
self-centeredness to a more universally conscious state. Regardless of the model, people tend toward
more complex moral and ethical reasoning, with a willingness to carry out and
follow through with moral decisions.
This aspect of student development, along with cognitive-structural and
psychosocial models, is imbedded in the missions of liberal arts setting.
The Liberal Arts Setting
Liberal arts institutions
provide experiences that shape individual students. They tend to be residential learning
communities that challenge students and foster excellence in the classroom and
beyond. However, Bennett (2001) states
the following:
Institutions are
different. Colleges
and universities do not all seek to add the same kind of value to students’
development. Even liberal arts
colleges do not all have the same mission.
We need to assess value added against a college’s chosen aspirations –
its mission. (p. 42).
Therefore, this paper uses
the mission and associated principles set forth by
Exceptional qualities of mind
and character include an inquisitive and analytical mind; respect for human
diversity and individuality; a sense of civic and global responsibility; sound
ethical principles; effective writing, speaking, and quantitative skills; and a
healthy lifestyle (GC&SU, 2001).
Faculty members focus their attention primarily on excellence in
instruction and guiding students. Small
classes, interdisciplinary studies, close association with faculty and staff in
and beyond the classroom, lively involvement in cultural life, and service to
the community are principles that impact student development. It is clear that central themes related to
student development are imbedded in the mission and principles of this liberal
arts institution. There is significant
documentation related to the use of experiential education to promote outcomes
such as student independence and identity formation, critical thinking, the
development of effective interpersonal relations, and concern for community and
global issues.
Experiential Education
and Student Development
in
the
Liberal Arts Setting
Kraft (1999) discusses the
philosophical and psychological relationships between experience and
learning. He suggests that experiential
education is grounded in learning theory, educational philosophy, the psychology
of learning, theories of intelligence, and research of learning. According to the Association for Experiential
Education (AEE), experiential education is “a process through which a learner
constructs knowledge, skill, and value from direct experiences” (p. 3). Principles of experiential education
practice established by AEE (figure 1) highlight essential features, and
provide a clear picture of this educational approach. It is clear from these principles that
experiential education are commensurate with the central themes related to
student development that are imbedded in the mission and principles of
GC&SU stated previously. However,
prerequisite to successful student development is attention to student needs
related to adjustment to the college environment, academic success, and career
development.
Noel (1977) identifies one of the strongest indicators of student
adjustment: the relationship between what incoming students expect college
to be like and what it is actually like (in Gass,
1999a). Therefore, the greater the
variance between expectations and actual experience, the greater the likelihood
those students will leave before graduation.
Dissonance between the two realities is to some extent natural, and
students who learn to deal with gaps between expectation and reality generally
cope better with life situations. Experiential
educators use dissonance as a tool to process meaningful learning by individuals
and groups about a broad range of topics that are fundamental to the college
environment. Metaphorically speaking,
students in experiential education programs learn strategies for managing
dissonance in real situations and to value a wide range of diversity in opinion,
knowledge, and skill. Students learn to move beyond immediate “let
downs” or inaccurate perceptions to a place where they learn to consider "failing
forward" a valuable growth experience. They find connections where there seem to be
none, and become more thoughtful and confident about choices and decisions.
Ultimately, these skills contribute positively to student development and
academic success.
Gass (1999a) and
Students who do not have
career directions or a determined major area of study have less motivation to
do well in their course work (Berger & Milem,
1999; Gass, 1999a; Tinto,
1975). It is important that institutions
provide opportunities for students to focus on potential career paths
associated with programs of study.
Decisions are not necessarily final, but are useful for developing
short- and long-term goals to work toward, and a sense of utility about
academic decisions. Outdoor education
experiences are used “as a means to generate discussions concerning career
development and to provide feedback to incoming students about the academic decisions
they are contemplating” (Gass, 1999a, p. 375). Conversations that take place within the
safety of a group that has established operating norms and boundaries provide
an ongoing place for discussing significant issues.
Opportunities for purposeful
experiential education are found in a wide range of institutional programs and
services such as student affairs, academic programs, continuing education, and
residence life. According to Astin's (1984) theory of
student involvement, student learning and personal development is dependent on
the amount of involvement a student has in school. The more involved and invested a student is
in school, the greater the likelihood that he or she will succeed. Therefore, one may assume that student
involvement is a necessary condition for student development. Intentionally developed and supported,
experiential education programs across the institution not only
address student expectations about the college experience, enhance academic
success, and address career development goals, they contribute to ongoing and
lasting personal growth and satisfaction with the college experience in areas
that are the hallmarks of the liberal arts institution.
Gass (1999a) notes a variety of factors that play an
important role in determining preparation for higher education. Often there is a misconception about the
academic workload and inadequate self-discipline, motivation, and the ability
to assume responsibility for the demands of higher education. Students may experience a lack of
connectedness to peers and faculty that leads to increase feelings of isolation
and ineptness. When these feelings are
addressed, students experience more accurate self-perceptions, greater
persistence and effort toward goals, and increased self-responsibility.
A range of outdoor [experiential]
education opportunities integrated with orientation and academic experiences
during the initial phases of the transition to higher education enhance personal
growth and social skills. The authors
found that students participating in outdoor education programs claimed better
adjustment to college life and experienced higher retention rates between
the first and second year, when the greatest numbers of dropout and transfers
normally occur (Brown and Gass, 1990). Curtis (1999)
suggests that the goals of wilderness orientation programs are to ease the
transition into school, transfer skills and ideas from the wilderness setting
to the academic setting, and develop positive connections with the institution
as a whole. Brown and Gass (1990) caution that orientation programs are, by themselves,
not enough, and that continued attention to a range of factors affecting the
transition to college is necessary to enhance long-lasting student success.
Curtis (1999) points out that
wilderness and other experiential education programs lead to increased
self-confidence and esteem, greater taking of responsibility for self and
others, and improved communication and decision making skills. These skills are enhanced through a better
understanding of one’s strengths and weaknesses, the development of personal
initiative, and learning to work more effectively with others. Further, there is an identifiable period of
adjustment and maturation that results in increased personal initiative
(Curtis, 1999). Students use newly
acquired skills and confidence to invest higher levels of positive energy in
the institution. The university and the
student continue to strengthen their mutual bond with one another, which
translates into more involvement and a perception of increased influence
(Bailey, 1999; Galloway, 2000; Priest, 1999a, 1999b).
Roueche & Rouche (1993) utilize Seligman’s
theory of learned helplessness to explain this phenomenon. Students who feel that “what they do has no
relationship to or is independent of responses or outcomes, .
. . find it difficult to do anything at all to help themselves” (p.
127). Experiential education
opportunities focus on helping participants to recognize the impact of their
actions on real outcomes for themselves and others. Students learn to set personal developmental
goals and take responsibility for their learning. They become meaningfully engaged in the
campus community and better prepared to transfer this ethos to life beyond
higher education.
Critical thinking
Koziey (1987) describes two ways of learning. The traditional model used in most schools he
calls the “learn-look-do” model in which students learn something, most often
through hearing or reading, look at someone else applying it, and sometimes
have an opportunity to do what has been learned. His alternative, deductive model is the
“do-look-learn” approach. In this model,
Koziey states that students extrapolate data to other
real-life situations through the use of theoretical and experience inputs to
make decisions about how insights gained can be utilized. Wurdinger and
Priest (1999) suggest that students are often given information and answers to
avoid potential difficulties that arise when they are asked to apply the
information or solve problems. The
authors imply that critical thinking in experiential education arises out of
problems that may lead to other problems during the application phase. Further, self-directed learners are able to
develop their own problematic situations and solutions. Experiential educators promote critical
thinking through raising questions and engaging the student in discussions that
promote thinking and help the learner to test theory that impacts them
personally.
Students learn best when they
are involved in experiences that are personally meaningful and real. The notion that the quality of the subjective
experience itself makes behavior intrinsically rewarding is captured by Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi
(1999). They suggest that a state
of “flow” is characterized by an
experience of engrossing and intrinsically rewarding feelings that produce the
ability to: “focus attention on the present moment and the activity at hand;
define one’s goals in an activity and identify the means for reaching them; and
seek feedback and focus on its informational aspects” (p. 157). Goals and means are logically ordered, so
that it is possible to foresee the result of alternative actions. Not all experiential education takes place in
the outdoors, however as a context for immersing the student in real situations
that require critical thinking is mandatory.
Horwood (1999) states that:
One
of the great advantages of the outdoors as the site for outdoor [experiential]
education is that the consequences of decisions cannot be evaded. Nature is implacable and quite indifferent to
the human condition. Tides and
nightfall, wind and avalanche do not pause because a person mislaid gear of
failed to check the weather forecast.” (p. 12)
Development of effective interpersonal relations
The development of meaningful
peer relationships is an extremely important aspect of successful transition to
college life (Astin, 1992; Gass,
1999a). Early interactions with peers strengthen perceptions of institutional
and social support and lead ultimately to students staying longer (Berger &
Milem, 1999; Elkins, Braxton, & James,
2000). Isolation from peers appears to
be highly related to academic failure and dropout (Gass,
1999a). [Experiential] education take place in small groups that are dependent on
effective interactions for the success of the entire group. Participants learn about communication,
respect, trust, and diversity through direct interactions with others. Competent facilitators process experiences to
ensure that learning takes place in a socially, emotionally, intellectually,
and physically safe environment.
It is clear that positive interactions
between faculty and students are strong determinants of student satisfaction.
Purcell (1987) describes several studies that demonstrate the impact
of faculty and staff mentoring programs on retention.
Both Gass (1999a) and Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) discuss the significance of faculty mentoring
on academic and interpersonal growth. The
authors note that outdoor education experiences are positively correlated
with the quality of faculty and staff interaction with students.
Gass (1999a) highlights outdoor education
programs as an opportunity for students to interact closely with faculty and
staff as they work together to accomplish goals and complete a variety of
tasks that are fundamental to the success of the experience.
Furthermore, students communicate with faculty and staff on the same
level because outdoor education experiences demand that both communicate effectively
and take responsibility for their actions.
Students experience an increase in their confidence to express opinions
and ideas, and learn that faculty and staff are approachable and value their
opinions.
Gass (1999a) also notes that “these types of situations
with faculty members provide students with a sense of personal validity and a
feeling that the university is concerned about the student as an individual”
(p. 375). Faculty and staff who interact
with students in outdoor education programs specifically designed for transitioning
students indicate that there is a significant impact on their ability to
interact with students in more meaningful ways during regular classes. Students indicate that they are better able
to engage in a wider variety of academic environments (Gass,
1999a).
Concern for community and global issues
Participants in outdoor education
programs report higher levels of trust and a reduction in stereotypical world
views (Brown and Gass, 1990). A major focus
of higher education is to instill within students a commitment to personal
growth and the confidence to successfully contribute to their own lives, the
lives of others, and the world at large. In
this regard, students seek and need significant and meaningful connections
to the institution to be successful. Astin (1984) defines
involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student
devotes to the academic experience. The
greater the energy, the more connected a student is to the campus community,
and communities outside the institution. Service learning is a central component of experiential
education.
Service learning is defined
as “an educational experience in which the student learns and develops through
active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet
actual community needs and that are coordinated in collaboration with school
and community” (Crew, 2000). Service
learning experiences are beneficial for both the community and the student, and
utilize an experiential education process to develop lifelong connections
between students, their communities, and the world outside the classroom.
Boss (1999) found that
outdoor education experiences contribute to the development of students who
have a strong sense of community and who actively participate in creating
better communities. Students develop an
increased sense of civic responsibility by interacting with the world around
them in positive ways. Academic course
content and program goals are enhanced through the inclusion of a deliberate
process to link service learning experiences to learning goals. Often referred to as "learning to serve
and serving to learn," this perspective on service learning helps to
distinguish it from “volunteerism” and ensure that course content is enhanced
through service experiences that put the learner in contact with what is to be
learned.
Outdoor education experiences
typically include a service-learning component that provides an opportunity to
practice what they have learned about highly functioning groups in order to
assess, plan, and implement a service experience. Boss suggests that students learn how to
identify problems as well as how to work with groups in formulating and
implementing solutions to those problems.
Effective problem solving and critical thinking skills are transferred
to academic classes and leadership opportunities on campus and in the wider
community.
Adventure education utilizes
the experiential process to promote integrated and holistic student development.
Priest (1999b) defines adventure education in terms of relationships.
Adventure education is concerned with interpersonal relationships,
how people get along in a group, and intrapersonal relationships, how an individual
relates with self. Adventure education utilizes risk, challenge,
and uncertainty to provide individuals with tasks to accomplish through the
use of good judgment, problem solving skills, creativity, and interactions
with others. Development and personal
growth occur through the enhancement of self-concept and improved social interactions.
Adventure education also
provides a structured learning experience, which results in increased human
performance and capacity (Bailey, 1999).
Priest (1999a) states that the goal of adventure
education “should be to create astute individuals; people who correctly
perceive the situational risks and their personal competencies” (p. 161). Finally, Hunt (1999) contributes the
observation that adventure education “provides a vehicle which enables students
to live the virtues” (p. 120). It is
through adventure and outdoor education’s utilization of the experiential
process that students can develop to their maximum potential in
cognitive-structural, psychosocial, and moral domains of development.
Conclusion
Experiential
education provides an excellent resource for institutions of higher education
to address and foster student development.
Gass (1999b), in a study of how outdoor
[experiential] programs promote the successful transfer of learning to academic
realms, found that these programs create opportunities that excite students
by showing them the intrinsic and future value of learning through experience.
He stated that opportunities to promote other learning opportunities
after the outdoor education experience, “can furnish one of the strongest
incentives for a student’s continued learning
and . . . success” (p. 233). Students
who participate in experiential education programs tend to develop a passion
for achievement, lifelong curiosity, and exuberance for learning. They are the students who possess the skills
to exhibit responsibility,
leadership, service, professionalism, and integrity.
The intention of experiential
learning is to apply new or demanding learning objectives to real world situations.
According to Wurdinger & Priest (1999), completion of the learning
cycle is of the utmost importance for the learner. Theory without experience is insufficient because there
is nothing to provide significance to the ideas without practice or application. Likewise,
having an experience without practice is “inadequate because it does not allow
individuals to take what they have learned and apply it to future experiences”
(p. 190). Experiential education is
based on direct experiences, in conjunction theoretical understanding, and
interaction with others and the environment.
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling
(1999) advocate that colleges look beyond statistical measures of retention and
focus on student development in order to decrease attrition. Student development
is seen as a process that begins at the time of application and concludes at
graduation. The journey between these
benchmarks provides and opportunity for institutions of higher education to
recruit and retain good students and to produce graduates who make a
significant contribution to society.
Many colleges and universities utilize experiential education programs
to maximize student development. It is
through the practical application of experiential learning in well-defined and
creatively implemented programs that students experience opportunities to
actualize their potential. These
programs contribute to the experience of higher education by focusing on
specific aspects of student development (Astin, 1984;
Purcell, 1987; Galloway, 2000; Roueche & Roueche, 1993; Gass, 1999;
Curtis, 1999; Berger & Milem, 1999; and Elkins,
et al., 2000). They report better
students, successful outcomes, and consequently greater productivity and
recognition for the institution.
References
Association for Experiential
Education. (n. d.). AEE
definition of experiential education. [Membership Brochure].
Astin, A. W.
(1984). Student development: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(4),
297-308.
Astin, A. W.
(1992). What matters in college? Four
critical years revisited.
Bailey, Joseph (1999). A world of adventure education. In J. C.
Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 39-42).
Baxter Magolda,
M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in
college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N.
R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind.
Bennett, D. C. (2001). Assessing Quality in Higher
Education. Liberal Education, 87(2),
40-46).
Berger, J. A., & Milem, J. F. (1999).
The role of student involvement and perceptions of
integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664).
Boss, J. A. (1999). Outdoor education and the
development of civic responsibility.
ERIC Digest. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Brown, D. A. (1998).
Does an outdoor orientation program really work? College & University, 73(4), 17-23.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L., (1993).
Education and identity (2nd
ed.).
Crews, R. J. (2000, April 8). What is service learning? Retrieved
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi,
Curtis, R. (1999, February 27). OA guide to running a wilderness orientation
program. Retrieved
Elkins, S. A.,
Braxton, J. M., & James, G. W. (2000). Tinto’s separation stage and its
influence on first-semester college student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 251-268.
Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected
papers. Psychological
Issue Monograph Series, 1(1).
Galloway, S. P. (2000). Assessment in wilderness orientation
programs: Efforts to improve college student retention. The Journal of Experiential Education, 23(2), 75-84.
Gass, M. A.
(1986). The effects of a wilderness orientation program on incoming students to
a university setting (Outward Bound,
Gass, M. A.
(1987). The effects of a wilderness
orientation program on college students.
Journal of Experiential Education, 10(2), 30-33.
Gass, M. A.
(1990). The longitudinal effects of an
adventure orientation program on the retention of students. Journal of College
Student Development, 31, 33-38.
Gass, M. A.
(1999a). Adventure programs in higher
education. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure
programming (pp. 373-83).
Gass, M. A.
(1999b). Transfer of learning in
adventure education. In
J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 227-33).
Gilligan, C. (1981). Moral development in the
college years. In A. W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college:
Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp.
139-57).
Gillis, H. L. &
Ringer, M. R. (1999). Adventure as therapy.
In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure
programming (pp. 29-35).
Horwood,
B. (1999). Educational
adventure and schooling. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp.
9-12).
Hunt,
J. S. (1999). Philosophy
of adventure education. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp.
115-22).
Johnson, D. W., &
Johnson, F. P. (1999). Joining
together: Group theory and group skills (7th ed.).
King, P. M., &
Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting
intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental
approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of
socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480).
Koziey, P.W.
(1987). Experiencing
mutuality. Journal of
Experiential Education, 10(3), 20-22.
Kohlberg,
L. (1971). Stages of
moral development as a basis for moral education. In C. Beck, B. S. Crittenden, & E. V.
Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 23-92).
Kraft, R. J. (1999). Experiential learning. In J. C. Miles & S.
Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp.181-86).
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How
college affects students.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of
meaning. In A. W. Chickering
& Associates, The modern American
college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing
society (pp. 267-73).
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children.
Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: a matter of
many relationships. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 17(3),
13-15.
Priest, S. (1999a). The adventure experience
paradigm. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure programming (pp. 159-62).
Priest, S. (1999b). The semantics of adventure
programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure programming (pp. 111-14).
Purcell, J. (1987). The impact of high-risk indicators on student retention. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Alabama, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 2108A.
Roueche, J. E. & Roueche S. D. (1993). Between
a rock and a hard place: The at-risk
student in the open-door college.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in
transition.
Terenzini, P.
T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling,
G. S. Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and
cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(5), 610-623.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout in higher education: A theoretical
synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45(1),
89-125.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges
as communities: Taking research on
student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher
Education, 21(2), 167-77.
Wurdinger, S.
D., &
Priest, S. (1999). Integrating
theory and application in experiential learning. In J. C. Miles & S.
Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 187-91).
Additional References
Astin, A.
(1984). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297-308.
Banning,
J.H. (1989). Impact of
college environments on freshman students. In M.L. Upcraft,
J.N. Gardner, & Associates. The freshman year experience (pp.
53-62).
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods
for studying the environment of human behavior.
Bauch, T.
M. (1995). Risk management practices of university based adventure programs.
Beedie,
P. (1994). Risk taking: the consensus
view. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11(2),
13-17.
Berkland,
M. L. & Query, S. (March, 1999). Youth Learning
Characteristics [On-line].
Available: www.exnet.iastate.edu/pages/y4h/e-set/nnst/learnerchar.html
Berman and Berman (1996). Using the wilderness to facilitate adjustment to college: An
updated description of Wilderness Orientation Programs. The
Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 22-28.
Bertolami,
C. (1981). Effects of Wilderness Programs on Self-esteem
and Locus of Control Orientations of Young Adults. Summary of Thesis. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 266928).
Booth-Butterfield,
S., McCorskey, J. C., & Payne, S. K. (1989). The impact of communication
apprehensions on college student retention and success. Communication Quarterly, 37, 100-7.
Boudreau, C. & Kromfrey,
J. (1994). A longitudinal study of the
retention and academic performance of participants in freshman orientation
course. Journal of College Student Development, 35(6),
440-44.
Brinkerhoff,
D. B., & Sullivan, P. E. (1982).
Concerns of new students: A pretest-posttest evaluation of
orientation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 23,
384-90.
Bright, A. & Tarrant, M. (1999). Recreation Visitor Experience
Preferences and Attitudes. In Cordell, K. (Ed.) Outdoor Recreation in
American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore
Publishing. 403-412.
Cairn, R. W., & Kielsier,
J. C. (Eds) (1995). Growing hope: A source book on integrating
youth service into the school curriculum
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson,
Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education.
The
Wingspread Journal, 9(2).
Collison,
M, (1989).
Cormier, L.S., & Hackney, H. (1993). The professional counselor: A process guide
to helping (2nd ed.).
Cross,
P. K., (1997). The freshman year: working out
the puzzle of a college education.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference on the Freshman Year
Experience,
Curtis,
R. (1999). Outdoor Action Guide to Developing a
Wilderness Orientation Program. Available: http://www.princeton.edu/~oa/ft/wildorie.html.
Curtis,
R. (1999). Outdoor Action Wilderness Orientation Home
Page. Available: http://www.princeton.edu/~oa//wildorie.html
Curtis,
R. (1999). Wilderness Orientation Programs for the New Millennium. Presentation at the 27th International Association for
Experiential Education Conference.
[www.document]. URL http://wwwprinceton.edu/~oa/ft/wild2k.shtml
Curtis,
R. (1994). Running a
frosh wilderness orientation program.
In Experiential Education: A
Critical Resource for the 21st Century. Proceedings
Manual of the Annual International Conference of the Association for
Experiential Education, 59-75.
Curtis,
R. (1994). Training
college wilderness leaders. In
Experiential Education: A Critical Resource for the 21st
Century. Proceedings Manual of the Annual International
Conference of the Association for Experiential Education, 250-60.
Curtis,
R. (1992). Training
college outdoor program leaders. In Celebrating our
Future: Proceedings of the International
Conference of the Association for Experiential Education, 99-106.
Cuseo, J.
(1997). Freshman orientation seminar at community colleges: A research-based
rationale for its value, content, and delivery.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 411 005).
Dale, P. & Zych, T.
(1996). A successful college
retention program. College Student Journal,
Sept. 1996, 30(4), 354.
Decker, D.J. & Connelly, N.A. (1989). Motivations for Deer Hunting: Implications for anterless deer harvest as a management tool. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 17, 455-563.
Devlin,
A. S. (1996). Survival skills training
during freshman orientation: Its role in
college adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 37(3),
324-33.
Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H., & Manfredo,
M. (1991). The paragraphs about
Leisure and Recreation Experience Preference Scales: Results from Two
Inventories Designed to Assess the Breadth of the Perceived Psychological
Benefits of Leisure. In Driver, BL, Brown, P. & Peterson,
G. (Eds.) Benefits of Leisure. State College PA: Venture
Publishing. 263-286.
Driver, B.L (1999). Management of
Public Outdoor Recreation and Related Amenity Resources for the Benefits they Provide. In Cordell, K. (Ed.) Outdoor Recreation in
American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore
Publishing. 2-15.
Dunphy, L. Miller, T., Nelson, J., &
Woodruff, T. (1987). Exemplary retention
strategies for the freshman year.
In McGinty Stodt, M., & Klepper, W. (Eds), Increasing
retention: Academic and student affairs, 39-60.
Duran, R. L., Hawken, L.
& Kelley, L. (1991). The relationship of
interpersonal communication variables to academic success and persistence in
college. Communication Quarterly, 39, 297-308.
Ewert, A.
(1993). Differences in the level of motive importance based on trip outcome,
experience level and group type. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), 335-349.
Ewert,
Alan. (2000). Components of the Outdoor Trip: What Really Happens?
Ewert, A.
& Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing
the Adventure Model: Empirical Support for a Model of Risk Recreation Participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 21 (2), 124-139.
Ewert, A. & Hollenhorst. S. (1994). Individual and setting attributes of the adventure recreation
experience. Leisure Sciences, 16(3), 177-188.
Floyd, M.F., & Gramann,
J.H. (1997). Experience-based setting
management: Implications for market segmentation of hunters. Leisure Sciences,
19 (2), 113-128.
Ford, P., & Blanchard, J. (1993). Leadership and Administration of Outdoor Pursuist (2nd ed.).
Venture Publishing Co.
Gardener, J. N., & Hansen, D. A. (1993). Perspectives on the future of orientation. In Upcraft,
M.L., Mullendore, R.H., Barefoot, B.O., & Fidler, D.S. (Eds.), Designing
successful transitions: A guide for orienting students for college. (Monograph
series no. 13). National
Orientation Directors Association.
Gass, M. A., Kerr, P. J., & Garvey,
D. (1986). Student orientation in
wilderness settings. In R. J. Kraft and M Sokofs (Eds.) Experiential education in the schools.
Gilligan,
C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s
conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47,
481-517.
Gray, T. & Patterson, J. (1994). Effective
research into experiential education: A critical resource in its own
right. In Experiential Education: A
Critical Resource for the 21st Century. Proceedings Manual of the Annual International Conference of the
Association for Experiential Education, 138-41.
Grimm,
G. (1971). Introduction and Orientation to College Outdoor
Programs.
Hansen, R. N. & Tracey, K. (1982). Quest: Career
Exploration in the Wilderness. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 23(4), 344-45.
Hendrick,
B. (1996). Moving ahead: Program review and evaluation
as tools for growth.
Hood,
A. (1984). Student Development: Does Participation Affect Growth?
Keenan, K. & Gabovitch,
R. (1995). Evaluating the impact of a freshman seminar program on student
development and retention.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North East Association
for Institutional Research,
Kerr, P.J., & Gass, M.
A. (1987). A group developmental model
for adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education, 10(3),
39-46.
Klingman,
B. (1991) The Call of the Wild: Investigating
the relationship between adventure education, character development, and the
college curriculum. UMI dissertation information service. (University microfilm No. 3
2511 00004 9624).
Komives,
S. R., Woodard, D. B., Jr. & Associates
(1996). Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed.).
Kuh, G.
D. (Ed.). (1993). Cultural perspectives in student affairs work.
Kuh, G. D., & Hall, J. E. (1993). Using cultural perspectives in student affairs. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.),
Cultural perspectives in student
affairs work (pp. 1-20).
Lanza, M. (1998). Outdoor
Oriented. Bacpacker, 26(6), 20.
Lee, W. (1997). Transitioning from high school to college:
Surviving a clash of educational cultures. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In M.L. Upcraft
& J. N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman
year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college.
Manfredo, M.J., Bright, A.D., &
Stephenson, M. (1991). Public Preferences for non-consumptive wildlife recreation in the
Manning,
R. (1986). Studies in outdoor recreation: A review and synthesis of the
social science literature in outdoor recreation.
McGowan,
M.L. (1997). Thinking outside the
box: the role of adventure in spiritual
and ethical development. Journal of Experiential Education, 10(3),
39-46.
Moore, J., Lovell, C., McGann,
T., & Wyrick, J. (1998). Why Involvement Matters: A Review of Research on
Student Involvement in the Collegiate Setting.
College Student Affairs Journal, 17 (2), 4-17.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational
environments.
Moos, R. H. (1986). The human context: Environmental
determinants of behavior.
Malabar,
FL: Kreiger.
National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (1987). A Perspective on Student Affairs. A Statement Issued on the
50th Anniversary of the Student Personnel Point of View.
Neubert,
R. (1986). Synopsis of Development Theory.
O’Keefe, M. (1989). Freshman
wilderness orientation programs: Model programs across the country. In Life
Beyond Walls: Proceedings of the 1988 National Conference on Outdoor Recreation,
(pp. 165-179),
Pandolfi, F. (1999). Perpetual
Motion, Unicorns, and Marketing in Outdoor Recreation.
In Cordell, K. (Ed.) Outdoor
Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends.
Sagamore
Publishing. ix-xii.
Pascerella, E. T., & Terenzini,
P. T. (1980). Student/faculty relationships and freshman
year educational outcomes: A further investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21(6), 521-28.
Potter,
T. (1997). Human dimensions of
expeditions: Deeply rooted, branching out.
In Deeply Rooted, Branching Out,
1972-1997. Annual Association for
Experiential Education International Conference Proceedings, pp. 2-7.
Porter, W. (1975). The development of the
wilderness experience program. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 200 366), RC 021-603.
Priest,
S. (1987). An International Survey of Outdoor Leadership
Preparation. Journal of Experiential Education, 10 (2), 34-39.
Proudman,
B. (1986). Experiential Learning and Outdoor Programs: An Exploration of Goals
and Directions.
Prouty,
D. (1997). Risking: What and why? Zip
Lines, 32, 6-7.
Quinn,
W. J. (1990). Essence
of adventure. Journal of Outdoor Education, 24(24),
22-25.
Raiola,
E. (1984). Outdoor adventure activities for new student
orientation programs.
(University microfilms no. 242-446).
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and
theory.
Rizzo, W. (1986). The Leisure Needs of College Students.
Robinson,
L. F. (1989). The
effect of freshman transition-to-college / orientation courses on student
retention. College Student Journal, 23(3),
225-229.
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J.
(1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.).
Schwitzer,
A., McGovern, T., & Robbins, S. (1991).
Adjustment outcomes of a freshman seminar: A utilization-focused approach. Journal of College Student Development, 32(6), 484-89.
Stewart.
W.P. (1992). Influence of the onsite experience on
recreation experience preference judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 24
(2), 185-198.
Stremba,
B. (1991). A
wilderness and community building new student orientation program. In Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop Summaries Book
of the Association for Experiential Education International Conference
(19th,
Stremba,
B. (1989). Passages: Helping college students
matriculate through outdoor adventure.
In Life Beyond Walls:
Proceedings of the 1988 National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, (pp.
199-208).
Stupka,
E. (1986). Student persistence and
achievement: An evaluation of the
effects of an extended orientation course.
Evaluative
Report No. 142.
Sushkin,
N. (2000). Developmental Theories. [On-line]. Available:
www.wpi.edu/Academics/CEDTA/ISG501/developmental.html
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella,
E. T. (1980). Student/Faculty relationships and freshman
year educational outcomes: A further
investigation. Journal of College Student Development,
21(6), 521-28.
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year college. Planning for Higher Education,
25, 1-6.
Virden, R.J., & Knopf, R.C. (1989). Activities, experiences, and environmental settings:
A case study of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Relationships. Leisure
Sciences, 11, 159-176.
Watters, R. (1986). The Outdoor Programming Handbook.
Webb,
D. (1997). University Outdoors Programs: State of the Art 1996.
Williamson,
Jed. (1997). Risk
– A matter of perspective. Zip Lines, 32, 22-27.
Williams, M., & Winston, R. Jr. (1985). Participation in Organized Student Activities and
Work: Differences in Developmental Task Achievement of Traditional
Zwick, R.R., Glass, R. J., & More, T.
A. (1993). Motivation/Importance
of typology of natural resource harvesters. In G.A. Vander Stoep (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium, 1993 April 18-20.