SOWK 5339 Integration Paper

Running head: RESEARCH INTEGRATION PAPER 1
On Engaging Nontraditional Students through Adventure:
A Research Integration Paper
Sarah Walters
Texas State University

RESEARCH INTEGRATION PAPER 2
On Engaging Nontraditional Students through Adventure: A Research Integration Paper
“Making sense of a day in the woods: Outdoor adventure experiences and early
childhood teacher education students” examines an outdoor adventure education program
used as a retention tool for nontraditional early childhood education (ECE) college
students. The article was published in the Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education’s
34th volume in January 2013. The author, Suzanne Lamorey, is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Child and Family Development at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte.
Summary of Article Content
Lamorey begins with a representation of the nontraditional ECE college students
that were the subjects of the study. These students, often well into established careers in
ECE when pushed into degree programs by the No Child Left Behind Act’s call for highly
qualified professionals, were “typically older, work[ing] full time and attend[ing] courses
part time, may have [had] dependents, and [were] often culturally and linguistically
diverse” (Lamorey, 2013, p. 320). They were more likely to doubt their ability to succeed in
a college classroom and less likely to have the supports necessary to do so. To address this
lack of supports, the author, in partnership with her university’s outdoor education
program director, conceived of an adventure education program to improve retention of
nontraditional ECE students, as well as improve their engagement in their program of
study and “their self-efficacy as skilled and successful degree-completers” (Lamorey, 2013,
p. 320).
This adventure education program was instituted as part of an ECE course
curriculum. It was designed, in following the established scheme for such programs, to use

experiential exercises and team challenges to boost personal and social growth of
participants in an informal but relevant context; the explicitly stated goals of the author, as
researcher and educator, were “to give the students an opportunity to (a) share their fears,
frustrations, and worries, (b) see their situations in a new context, and (c) perhaps recreate
their perceptions of professional and personal self in more empowered and efficacious
roles” (Lamorey, 2013, p. 321). The program design and goals were informed by a
thorough review of the research on outdoor adventure education programs.
Review of the Literature
In reviewing the literature, the author focused on empirical studies that outlined
positive outcomes of outdoor adventure programs. Among the positive outcomes listed
were improvements to self-concept, self-confidence, and locus of control (Hattie, Marsh,
Neill, & Richards, 1997); acquisition of a sense of empowerment (Shellman & Ewert, 2010);
increased perception of group cohesion and group identity (Glass & Behnshoff, 2002);
increased interpersonal skills and concern for others (McKenzie, 2003); and decreased
tension-anxiety responses and feelings of depression (Kanters, Bristol, & Attarian, 2002).
Particularly salient to teacher education were outcomes such as increased awareness of
peer supports, appreciation of supportive environments, coping mechanisms, and
understanding of own students’ experiences in school (Carlson & McKenna, 2000). The
author emphasized that these outcomes of “supportive and reflective” adventure education
programs were enhanced by facilitators through debriefing and provision of feedback
related to skill acquisition, and that models such as the Enroll, Experience, Label,
Demonstrate, Review, and Celebrate (EELDRC) approach (Roberts, 2002) the
ExperienceChange model (Chisholm & Warman, 2007), the commitment, alignment,

relationships, and behaviors (CARB) model (Eikenberry, 2007), and various adult learning
models should inform facilitators’ practice to maximize effectiveness.
Methods
Lamorey employed a qualitative case study approach in order to “captur[e] the
participants’ words and interactions in a naturalistic context” (2013, p. 323). The author
accompanied three different groups of students through three separate day-long adventure
education programs. Data transcripts were comprised of descriptive observations and
quotations captured on-paper by the author during these programs.
Participants. Seventy-eight ECE students, all female, participated in the study. Ages
ranged from 22 to 59 years, and 44% of participants were European American, 41%
African American, and 15% Hispanic. All participants were employed in the ECE field and
required to earn a related undergraduate degree to keep their jobs.
Materials. The outdoor adventure program was held at a low ropes and team
challenges course operated by a university-sponsored program. The program was
facilitated by employees of the course.
Design and Procedure. The author and outdoor adventure program facilitators co-
developed a curriculum with heavy emphasis on debriefing discussions that focused on the
context and meaning of participants’ work. To analyze the results, the author addressed
four challenge activities in detail and coded transcripts of these activities to provide a
thematic analysis.
Results
The detailed narratives of the activities were outlined in the results section of the
article. A description, an explanation of “[w]hat happened,” and a summary of the

debriefing were provided for each of four activities: “Spider Web,” “Teeter-Totter,” “Jump
Rope,” and “Balls and Tubes” (Lamorey, 2013). This – essentially raw – data was analyzed
in the discussion of coded themes.
Discussion of Themes. Coding categories were informed by outcomes listed in the
literature review, and condensed upon review of the transcripts. These categories were
perseverance, collaboration, overcoming fears, and reflection.
Implications
The author concludes that many of the positive outcomes of adventure education
programs identified in the literature review were also experienced in the current study by
nontraditional ECE student participants. In question are the “’staying power’’ and
quantification of such outcomes (Lamorey, 2013, p. 332). The author suggests that future
research explore long-term implications of adventure education program participation and
attempt to better quantify results.
Purpose & Therapeutic Value of the Studied Intervention
The article made clear several explicitly stated goals of the studied intervention, as
mentioned previously. Put succinctly, the objective of the intervention was to “facilitat[e]
enhanced self-efficacy of students relative to their personal and professional selves” by
“’provid[ing] transformative group experiences using tailored challenges and guided
reflection’” (Lamorey, 2013, p. 323). The intervention was also intended as a supportive
retention improvement activity that would engage students in their academic program by
developing a shared group identity. As such, this outdoor adventure education program
was a therapeutic program “focusing primarily on educational or enrichment goals . . .

where change was attained through a focus on generic issues of the target group,” as
identified by Gillis and Gass (2004, Adventure Therapy Settings section).
The therapeutic component, or attainment of change, of the studied intervention
was in the open-ended, contextualized debriefing discussions. The activities were in and of
themselves productive of positive outcomes for participants as individuals and as a group,
certainly, but the focus of the researcher and facilitators was on providing a relevant
context for developing meaning related to participants’ work within the ECE profession.
The therapeutic value, then, was in “punctuating the isomorphic (i.e., parallel) connections
between the insights and learnings during the activity to the parallels existing within
clients’ lives” (Gillis & Gass, 2004, An Adventure Experience subsection). Through targeted
and metaphoric debriefing, participants were able to recognize positive outcomes to
“interpersonal and intrapersonal skills” that “did seem to trigger a sense of empowerment .
. . that flowed into their . . . discussions of self and work” (Lamorey, 2013, p. 332).
Theoretical Concepts Applied through the Study
As with the goals of the program, its essential theoretical foundations are also
explicitly stated. The design of the outdoor adventure education intervention applied in the
study was based upon the “elements of intrapersonal and interpersonal self-awareness,
acquisition of new behaviors and skills, and a transfer of learning to applied experiences”
outlined in several referenced change models (Lamorey, 2013, p. 322). The author also
referenced adult learning models as adding to the theoretical base for the intervention.
Not explicitly mentioned but arguably a driving concept behind the intervention’s
design is interpretivist theory, “which suggests that program impacts are constructed from
the meaning that participants make of their experiences” (D’Amato & Krasny, 2011). The

application of interpretivism is glaringly present in the program’s focus on reflexive,
contextualized debriefing, regardless of Lamorey’s conscious knowledge of the theory – or
lack thereof. In placing the therapeutic emphasis on the debriefing process, the researcher
and facilitators engaged a phenomenological Verstehen, a concern with “understanding
how the everyday, intersubjective world . . . is constituted” through “’reconstruct[ing] the
genesis of the objective meanings of action in the intersubjective communication of
individuals in the social-life world’” (Schwandt, 2003, p. 192; Outhwaite, 1975, p. 91). A
myriad of other experiential education, adventure therapy, and related theories could also
be argued as having been applied in this intervention’s practice, but a focus on
interventionism matches the focus on targeted debriefing.
Application of the Intervention to the Studied Population
Perhaps the biggest strength of the article is the Lamorey’s intentional and dynamic
justification of the intervention as relevant to and appropriate for the studied population.
The author reasons that, because of their multilayered and complex roles, nontraditional
students are “particularly appropriate candidates” for “an applied, experiential approach in
expanding the development of knowledge and skills for their profession” (Lamorey, 2013,
pp. 333 & 322). Furthermore, Lamorey emphasizes that “the opportunity to explore and
develop each individual’s sense of personal and professional perseverance, collaboration,
ability to overcome fears, and engage in reflection” is a potentially transformative and
likely enduringly effective means of “supporting their roles and responsibilities as students,
teachers, and graduates” (Lamorey, 2013, p. 333).
Lamorey’s emphatic reasoning that the studied outdoor education intervention is
appropriate for college students, and nontraditional college students in particular, is

supported by similar research. Kanters, Bristol, & Attarian, for example, establish that one-
day, curriculum based programs using initiative-based activities and convenient facilities
can and do achieve the same positive outcomes as expensive and time consuming multi-
day, high adventure programs for college students so long as they are targeted and
successfully debriefed (2002). It seems the narrow scope of this intervention, which
involves limited time and financial commitments and is tied to course requirements, is
particularly appropriate for college students in that it is easily accessible but still
transformative. This narrow scope and accessibility of the intervention, as well as the
demonstrated successful application with a diverse population of nontraditional students,
suggest limited diversity concerns for the application of a similar outdoor education
program.
Ethical Concerns Related to the Studied Intervention
The studied intervention – a basic, one-day, low ropes and team challenges program
– is well-established as appropriate for adventure therapy and outdoor adventure
education. The activities involved, including low ropes challenges such as “Spider Web” and
group initiative activities such as “Balls and Tubes,” are physically and emotionally low-
risk. This low risk is further mitigated by several other factors of the intervention’s
implementation as presented in the study: the involvement of professionally trained
facilitators, the use of an adequate specialized facility, and the nature of the typically
functioning adult population. As such, there is no mention of potential ethical concerns
within the article itself.
However, as in any adventure-related program, there are ethical considerations
relevant to the principled provision of the studied intervention. The American

Psychological Association’s “Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct” is an
effective resource for understanding which principles are, in fact, relevant to the study.
Two basic principles seem to be most relevant: “3.04 Avoiding Harm” and “10.03 Group
Therapy” (American Psychological Association, 2010). “Avoiding Harm” is relevant in that
it is crucial “to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable” in any situation in
which participants face any physical and emotional risk, even minimal; “Group Therapy” is
relevant in that the studied intervention is group-oriented and therefore does present
some risk related to confidentiality, etc. (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Beyond these basic general principles, the more specialized “Ethical guidelines for
the therapeutic adventure professional” provided by the Association of Experiential
Education also provide a framework of relevant considerations even for this relatively low-
risk intervention. “Competence,” “Integrity,” “Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity,”
“Concern for Welfare,” and “Social Responsibility” must all be maintained (“Ethical
Guidelines,” n.d.). Furthermore, as the studied population is comprised of professional
educators, “Professional Responsibility” seems particularly poignant (“Ethical Guidelines,”
n.d.). Participants may, in turn, seek to use similar adventure education interventions with
their own students. Therefore, it is particularly crucial that facilitators represent the
profession in a clear and principled manner and advocate for ethical and appropriate
provision of services.
Conclusion
Lamorey’s article is particularly relevant to a professional seeking to work with
college students or with a similarly diverse adult population. While the studied
intervention is not necessarily innovative by adventure therapy standards, such an

adventure education program would certainly be considered a novel addition to degree
programs at many colleges and universities. The value of the article is, therefore, not in its
introduction of a groundbreaking intervention for a hard-to-reach population – or lack
thereof – but in its solid defense of an established intervention as useful, appropriate, and
therapeutic for college students.

References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=13
Carlson, T. B., & McKenna, P. (2000). A reflective adventure for student teachers. Journal of
Experiential Education, 23(1), 17–25.
Chisholm, J., & Warman, W. (2007). Experiential learning in change management. In M.
Silberman (Ed.), The handbook of experiential learning (pp. 321–340). San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eikenberry, K. (2007). Experiential learning in team training. In M. Silberman (Ed.), The
handbook of experiential learning (pp. 256–271). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Ethical guidelines for the therapeutic adventure professional. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.aee.org/tapg-best-p-ethics
D’Amato, L. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Outdoor adventure education: Applying
transformative learning theory to understanding instrumental learning and
personal growth in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 42(4), 237-254.
Gillis, H. L., & Gass, M. A. (2004). Adventure therapy with groups. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D.
A. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.). Handbook of group counseling and
psychotherapy (pp. 593-605). New York: Norton-Sage.
Glass, J. S., & Benshoff, J. M. (2002). Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through
challenge course experiences. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 268–277.

Hattie, J. M., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and
Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that have a lasting effect. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 43–87.
Kanters, M. A., Bristol, D. G., & Attarian, A. (2002). The effects of outdoor experiential
training on perceptions of college stress. The Journal of Experiential Education, 25,
257–267.
Lamorey, S. (2013). Making sense of a day in the woods: Outdoor adventure experiences
and early childhood teacher education students. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 34, 320-334.
McKenzie, M. (2003). Beyond “The Outward Bound Process:” Rethinking student learning.
The Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 8–23.
Outhwaite, W. (1975). Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Roberts, J. (2002). Beyond learning by doing: The brain compatible approach. The Journal
of Experiential Education, 25, 281–286.
Schwandt, T. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 189–
213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shellman, A., & Ewert, S. (2010). A multi-method approach to understanding empowerment
processes and outcomes of adventure education program experiences. The Journal
of Experiential Education, 32, 275–279.

SOWK 5339 Integration Paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to SOWK 5339 Integration Paper

More from Sarah Walters

Recently uploaded

SOWK 5339 Integration Paper