Reconsidering McKenzie’s Six Adventure Education Programming Elements Using an Ecological Dynamics Lens and Its Implications for Health and Wellbeing

Abstract

Two decades ago, McKenzie's meta-analysis of literature provided six fundamental elements of adventure education programme design still used to guide research and practice today. While the value of McKenzie's early work should not be underestimated, adventure education has undergone considerable changes. Adventurous activities are now available in urban and indoor contexts and used to facilitate a growing health and wellbeing agenda. The use of risk as part of adventure education programming has also been critiqued. This paper reflects on contemporary notions of adventure, risk and the emergent narratives emphasising the associated psychological benefits. The Ecological Dynamics framework, along with representative design delivery, are presented as a viable way of building on McKenzie's work. Both consider how effective outcomes in adventure education programmes are achieved through designs that focus on the unique relationship between the individual and their environment. While McKenzie's six elements recognise the importance of human relationships, Ecological Dynamics forefronts relational elements, not just between participants but, importantly, the task and the environment. Individual participant needs in relation to their everyday life therefore become the focus of adventure education expanding beyond the traditional long-standing narratives of risk and danger. Through these two important concepts, this paper advocates an approach to the design of adventure representative of a participant's everyday environment. In this way, adventure education outcomes translate beyond the adventure-specific context and align more holistically with the needs of individual participants while also assuring emphasis on individual health and wellbeing.Sports 2020, 8, 20 2 of 16 environments. Activities referred to the quality of the activities designed into the programme and how well they provide mental, physical and psychological challenges and opportunities for mastery. Processing described the process of making sense of the programme by the participants and how learning in the adventure programme might be transferred to everyday life. The group element focused on the impact of group size, fellow participants and cooperation during learning. The instructor's influence included how they interacted with the group and what they brought to the programme. The participant's characteristics and capacity for autonomy were also considered important.Underpinning these categories was the notion that effective adventure programme design suggested the inclusion of challenge and risk, for example, opportunities for emotional and social risk. Contemporary evidence suggests AEP is still based on activities designed to emphasise the impact of risk (physical and psychological), with little regard for nature and requirements of participants [2][3][4][5][6]. According to Wurdinger [7], it is risk, danger and uncertainty that differentiate AEP from other activities and impacts on the learning outcomes (see Brown and Beames [3] for a contemporary ...

Development of immersive learning framework (ILF) in achieving the goals of higher education: measuring the impact using a pre–post design

“…Many educators and educational institutions have experimented with experiential-learner-centred models due to their widespread acceptance 33 . They use various experiential learning methods such as service learning 34 , 35 , problem-based learning 36 , 37 , action learning 38 , 39 adventure education 40 , 41 and simulation and gaming 42 , 43 . ILF is another experiential learning process, where the students transform themselves through learn, act and reflect paradigm, which makes them lifelong receivers and creators of knowledge, thereby becoming successful graduates and promising citizens 44 .…”