Recently I had the opportunity to join a former colleague on his radio program to discuss Experiential Education and how it can support learning in the classroom. Coincidently, I have found myself in numerous conversations regarding Experiential Education and Outdoor Education in recent weeks. Being on a radio show via phone is an interesting experience. It was perhaps not my best performance, but that doesn’t bother me much. What did bother me is how 30 minutes goes so fast especially when the questions opened huge topics. I think I managed to get to 25% of my notes and the ideas I wanted to share. For the purpose of our conversation, we focused more on Experiential Education in the more traditional sense of Outdoor Education (hiking, biking, climbing, ropes course, gardening, camping, etc.). However, we briefly discussed service learning and internships. The key to understanding and practicing experiential learning opportunities is the connection and transfer from experiences outside of school to experiences inside of school.
We only skimmed the surface of the topic. Lost in the rich questions, we didn't really discuss the growing body of research to support outdoor programming. While studies in years past have looked at how such experiences impact an individual’s sense of self, more recent research has examined how outdoor programming:
Improves a student’s ability to focus or pay attention back in the classroom.
Decreases an individual’s stress level.
Improves collaborative and communication skills
We did discuss how outdoor programming should mirror or support classroom learning (academic and social) and that all learning, no matter where or how it happens, means transforming how individuals see and negotiate their world. As our time ran out, we had just touched on the notion that knowledge without experience lacks context and meaning or that experience without knowledge has little long term impact on individuals or groups. The benefit of outdoor programming lies in the fact that students have an opportunity to live their learning, but in order to do that they have to own what they are doing. I suggest that this was true for all learning as was the notion that good teachers would agree that their job is to expand a student’s sense of what they can do and how much they are capable of in this world.
Recently I’ve had several people ask me about the purpose and benefits of Outdoor Education (OE) or Experiential Education (EE) for their students and schools. From parents I usually get some version of routine questions - inquiries from parents who don’t want their kids to go away on such trips; or aren’t sure if there is any benefits to such programs. Colleagues and peers often ask versions of the same questions. My response to these queries usually begins with a fairly short reply that outlines the importance and potential benefits OE/EE programming for students, groups, and for schools as a whole. I have also had several friends ask me for advice in starting OE/EE programs at their schools. Again, I start with the short answer to their query so I can gauge their level of commitment to the topic. So to parents, colleagues, and administrators who want the long answer - here are a few things you need to know about outdoor programming before you get involved.
Outdoor education has changed over the years. Perhaps the soul of OE programming has shifted with changing times or maybe it’s good programming versus less good programming. There are many good programs out there and some poor ones. By poor I don’t mean dangerous (although I have witnessed a few dangerous school trips). I mean that such programs miss many learning opportunities by insulating participants within a curated experience that misses much of the potential of OE/EE programming. Unfortunately, people have become used to such programs. So when they experience a thorough and involved OE program, some participants believe such experiences are over the top and unnecessary. These are the same people who have no idea how hard you just worked taking 12 middle schools on a eight mile mountain bike ride to deliver produce (“it was just a bike ride”) or that the three day school camping trip meant you didn’t sleep much for 72 hours (“camping sounds nice”). That ignorance combined with a general trend away from the benefits of struggle, discomfort, and uncertain outcomes, has led some OE programs to move towards what I refer to as ‘gated community’ programming (insulated with glimpses of adventure) in order to survive economic hardship. That is ok. I do have my thoughts of what makes a good OE/EE program. It is not the level of adventure within a curated experience that makes great programming. Hopefully there is room for multiple levels of adventure in programming. “Best type of programs” are those programs facilitated above industry standards with a high level of professionalism in which participants learn. Learning - that’s where the problem lies. The heart of any OE and EE program like any educational endeavor is what and how students learn.
Programs and programming varies. Schools have choices to make. Programs should meet the needs of the students and be congruent with the school’s philosophy. Schools have to decide how much they want to invest in and commit to outdoor or experiential programming. Once they do, there are several options for them to choose from to best meet their needs.
In terms of OE/EE programs in schools there are two broad categories - clubs and class trips. Clubs represent extracurricular activities much like chess or debate clubs. So a school could start, for instance, a rock climbing program after school. This rock climbing club would probably, after developing sport specific technique and skills, focus on fun, fitness, and climbing related knowledge construction. Class trips on the other hand are intracurricular events that tend to focus on individual growth, community dynamics, and exploring a specific place (e.g. Yosemite National Park). Now of course there are hybrids of these two categories. For example, a class field trip to go hiking or to a ropes course blends the goals of both club outings and class trips. If a school wants to set up outdoor programming extracurricular clubs represents the easiest way to begin.
Starting an outdoor club, perhaps with a class trips mixed across grades occasionally, offers perhaps the easiest and most cost effective path to setting a programmatic foundation (and build interest for expanding the program in the future). The downside for the club route is that clubs can sometime live a feast or famine existence in schools. The life of a club depends almost entirely on participation and available faculty advisors until the program establishes itself within the fabric of the school ethos. If student interest fades periodically the life of a club requires dedicated leadership to weather the down turns. Depending on the cost to the school this leadership will be necessary to ensure that a school is willing to brave the questions around the club’s cost effectiveness. However, with some creative planning and institutional flexibility getting a club going is a great addition to a school community. Clubs offer opportunities for students to try something new, provide a community within the school, and plant the seeds for other outdoor pursuits.
Many independent schools conduct OE class trips during the school year. The most traditional set up is the week long “bonding” trip at the beginning of the school year. Within this model there are several categories of trips. In general within the class trip genre of OE there are three subcategories: the guided trip, the family style trip, and the student led trip. Guided trips involve schools turning to an outside group to structure and facilitate their experience. This outside group (or the company in coordination with teachers) will plan and oversee activities and meals for the school. Students usually sleep in cabins, yurts, or prefab tents in a ‘camp’ location. Often there is a cafeteria for students. The facilitators essentially guide students from one activity to the next throughout the experience. During this time the vast majority of participants stay rooted in their comfort zone. Students experience challenges but without much investment in or responsibility for the outcome of the experience, the status quo within individuals and group dynamics remains unchanged.
I refer to the second category of OE trips as Family Style. On these trips schools rely on parents and families for gear, supervision, and to help facilitate activities. Often a small group of parent volunteers drive students, share in some (if not all) of camp set up, as well as support activities and meals. The success of these trips is dependent on the quality of the parental involvements. Mind you that Family Style trips might be most appropriate for younger students, but are still common into middle school. Some parents are quite helpful. Other parents try to do everything for the students in order to be helpful but as the poem says, “some kind of help is the kind of help we could all do without.” Parental volunteers are hit or miss - some parents are worth their weight in gold and others are just more work than they are worth. For students there are several potential issues with having parents on a trip. First, students behave differently when their parents (or any parents) are around. Second, parenting is different than teaching so some parents do too many things for students. Students then are not challenged much or invest much in the outcome of the trip. So depending on a variety of factors students may or may not push the boundaries of their abilities or experience. Students may or may not challenge or transform the status quo in their community. Unfortunately, while this type of trip is relatively easy for some schools to pull off, the amount of learning depends on way too many variables.
The third category of school based OE trips are Student Led trips. For these trips a school’s OE program oversees the planning and facilitation of the trip. Classroom teachers and their students have a much larger role in the planning and day-to-day operation of their experience. The success of these trips depends on student engagement during each phase of the trip as well as each activity. On these trips students help plan the menu, cook the food, set up tents, and can help plan the different activities. Students are responsible for how the trip goes. Whereas on the other types of trips students might show up for meals or help parents cook, on Student Led trips if students don’t work well together teachable moments quickly come to the surface. For example, if students don’t have a plan for the meal they are responsible for - dinner might takes several hours to prepare. There’s a big difference in the level of engagement between those who just have to show up to dinner and those who have to plan and cook dinner. If you don’t plan and focus in the grocery store it may take four hours longer to shop for than anticipated and you might find out later you bought five dozen hot dog rolls but nobody grabbed hot dogs. Of course now you’re four hours behind schedule when you arrive at your campsite. The sun is going down and students have to put up their tents before it gets dark and before they start making dinner. If you want to test how a small group works together - just ask them to put up a tent. Enlightening - such a rich data point. The teachers on these trips don’t don’t things for students, they do things with students. Teachers ask a lot of leading or clarifying questions. This way, students have opportunities to explain and clarify their ideas before testing out their systems. On these trips students get constant and often immediate feedback from their teachers, their peers, and their activities. By taking more of a facilitator role or even a ‘one down’ role, teachers can build or strengthen their relations with students. Students have to take a closer look at the impact of their actions within their community, and wrestle with the ‘voices’ inside their hide guiding their emotions and their sense of self. Overall student centered trips highlight interpersonal as well as intrapersonal relationships.
Personally, I have been on fantastic trips that represent each category of OE program. So it isn’t the type of trip that is the issue. As mentioned previously, schools have to figure out which category of programming works best for their philosophy and their goals. Central to judging this fit is the question is a common question asked in schools - what and how are students learning? Sound familiar? Teachers and administrators ask this question constantly regarding academic curricula inside the classroom. Yet, this question often gets overlooked when choosing or planning an OE program or trip. Analyzing the effectiveness of learning on outdoor/experiential program often gets overlooked due to several factors. Admin tend to focus first on the cost of these efforts and will look at how the optics of such programming represents the school. Parents often focus on the time away from home, academics, and extracurricular activities. Teachers’ concern usually overlap with these other concerns. They are also reluctant to take on the added responsibility or discomfort of these trips. Unfortunately this short sighted thinking obfuscates the tremendous potential upside of such programming.
Learning requires change. The act of learning expands an individual’s knowledge and understanding into new territory. When working with youth in a school setting learning involves academics, social dynamics, and emotional as well as psychological development. The changes brought on by learning can be quick, but more often than not, are subtle - the result of a gradual process. The development of new knowledge or the shoring up of prior knowledge means that individuals or groups (social cognition) have transformed in some manner. And yes, we can look at groups as social and cognitive entities that work, play, and think together. Yet, change is hard. Learning presents difficulties for individuals and groups. People tend to cling to the safety of what they know and are reluctant to change (learn). The comfort and safety of the status quo is difficult to leave. New knowledge represent an unknown and exploring the unknown is scary.
Teacher are agents of change. As a classroom teacher if your students don’t grow, change, and learn - you will most likely be looking for work frequently. As the teacher of OE/EE programming you want to support change within individuals and groups. On many OE/EE trips however teachers allow many students and their classrooms to cling to the status quo. So why do teachers who are so invested in subject matter transformation, overlook potential social/emotional/intellectual transformation on these trips?
On many OE trips participants are allowed to maintain or remain within the status quo. Now some folks will tell me that even on the comfiest guided trip the participants have moments of discomfort that precede growth. Insert eye rolling emoji here. Others will argue with me that too much discomfort stymies learning. True. And again, insert eye rolling emoji here. Like with risk, moderate amounts of discomfort is the sweet spot that fosters learning. So let me say this - planning an OE trip presents several challenges. One of which is that in any group you have many different levels of comfort and willingness to change. Participants will all find different things on the trip challenging. The key is putting together an experience that challenges everyone a little and using that to create empathetic relationships that reshape the community. Unfortunately, too many people instead lower the bar so that there is little discomfort or risk. When you lower the bar this far (so low only Jim Cameron can find it) very little learning occurs as participants remain within the comfort of their status quo. If you raise the bar and foster transformative opportunities for everyone you provide a tremendous opportunity for individuals or groups to create a network of understanding, compassion, and knowledge. It is ok for students (and teachers) to struggle. No math teacher says, “I’m not going to teach long division because students don’t like it and might struggle.” As much as my 4th grade self would have loved Mrs. Kahn to have said that - no doubt that phrase is not uttered around too many schools. So why is it that folks say something that very thing about outdoor programming? Why waste tremendous opportunities to prepare students for the future by building stronger individuals and communities. Teachers are there to support, nurture, and comfort their students in these moments. That’s part of the job. Change is a struggle. That struggle, although uncomfortable, creates new networks of knowledge. Creating new knowledge is what teacher do.
Schools have to decide what style of OE programs fits best for them. Any of these trips have the potential to take out of schools experiences and use them to strengthen what happens inside of school. Too often though a false dichotomy is created around this decision making - OE/EE versus ‘real’ learning. However this ignores the fact that these are not mutually exclusive forms of learning. In fact they are incredibly congruent and supportive of one another. Embrace the benefit and potential of OE/EE programming. Where ever you are or whoever you are - take a step into new territory. You will provide students with myriad opportunities to explore who they are and how much they are capable of - in school and beyond.
