Competence: Not Just For Instructors

Abstract

My observations of the pursuit of outdoor education have led me the conclusion that there exist two distinct groups of practitioners within the domain, which follow conflicting practices. (1) Members of the first group believe that students and clients must be fed a steady diet of high adventure in order to satisfy their needs, whilst members of the second believe that the same diet will destroy any chance that outdoor education can promote an appreciation of the natural environment. The first group tends to put together programmes that offer a smorgasbord of activities typified by abseiling, high ropes courses, and high elements such as the "Pamper Pole". These educators focus on the "Adventure Education" pole of Outdoor Education, which is based on the premise that personal development can take place in a person through exposure to challenging experiences (Priest, 1988). The second group, on the other hand, focussing on the "Environmental Education" pole of Outdoor Education, downplays the role of adrenalin in journeys and experiences within the natural environment; rather, students should be encouraged to develop a caring relationship with this environment (Martin, 1999a). Although my sympathies lie primarily with Martin's understanding of "critical outdoor education" (Martin 1999b), I have to own up to some secret hankering after the thrills and spills of adventure. I love the excitement of negotiating a difficult rapid in a river, and the exhausted elation that follows a successful rockclimb. I would like to find a method of teaching Outdoor Education that combines the thrill of exciting activities with the development of a relationship with nature. For me, the key to such a combination lies in the development of competence. Competence is not addressed well, in my opinion, by the first of the groups described above. This group, in exposing novice students to "high adventure" activities, must needs rely on "perceived" risk for this perception of challenge, since such students are not equipped with the skills which would enable them to engage in "real" risk. Members of the second group, on the other hand, do expect students to develop skills to journey in, and engage with the outdoors. However, they emphasise that such skills should be developed purely to "enable a familiarity and friendship [with nature] to flourish" (Martin, 1999b). An over-emphasis on technical skills will detract from the development of a relationship with nature, being more allied with the notion of "conquest" of the outdoors. Whilst it is difficult to argue with this point, I find it problematical to understand what exactly constitutes an overemphasis on skills. In our consumer-oriented, professionally separated world, competence is often a rare commodity. We rarely understand how our systems work, and seldom take responsibility for their safe operation, leaving such details as the care of our cars, our electrical devices and our bodies to the experts. Those outdoor educators who offer high adventure experiences to novice players are buying into the same mentality: the students or clients pay their money and experience their thrills. …