Transfer of Learning Through Outdoor Education

One of the biggest challenges we face in education both inside and outside the classroom, is the extent to which what is learnt in one context can be transferred to another (Brown, M. 2010)

Transfer has been described as one of the most critical features of adventure programming (Priest, S., Gass, M.A. 2005) and the true value or effectiveness of an adventure programme lies in how the learning experienced during the activity will serve the learner in the future (Gass, M.A. 1999). As adventure educators, how much of this are we aiming for in our own workplace? Sure, we might be aware of the concept of transfer but are we throwing the term around to justify what we do?  Or are we designing our outdoor education programmes with this outcome in mind, and if so, how much have looked into the research behind the construct?

To understand this further, let’s look at what transfer is and perhaps consider its continued use as an outcome…

To put it simply, transfer is the quest to see if some knowledge or skill learned in one context will be repeated or utilised in another context (Detterman, D.,1993). In the outdoor environment, Priest and Gass (1997) define transfer as the integration of learning from the adventure program into the participant’s real life.                                                            

In adventure education settings, there are three theories concerning transfer of learning from one environment to another; Specific, Non Specific and Metaphoric Transfer. (See Fig.1) (Gass, M. 1999)

A participant may have learnt the skill of belaying a rock climber on day one, on day two they are learning to abseil, the participant makes the association between the similar use of the belay device for both situations, this is specific transfer shown in Fig.1: 1A-1B.

In Fig.1 2A-2B The non-specific transfer occurs when a participant takes the common principles they have learned from one situation, generalises them, then applies them to a new situation for example, a participant may learn the value of building a trusting relationship through a team task then transfers this learning to a similar situation when making friends in a school environment.

The third transfer theory is metaphoric transfer, depicted in Fig.1 3A-3B, similar to non-specific transfer in that the participant learns the principles from one situation, generalises them, then applies it to a new situation, however the new situation differs structurally but is similar metaphorically.  

For example, two participants learn to paddle a canoe over a weekend course, they learn that to move the canoe forward efficiently, each person must paddle evenly and smoothly, because if they don’t, the canoe journey becomes jerky and the progress slows down.

One of the participants goes back to work on Monday and ‘transfers’ this by generalising the principle of working together efficiently to maintain steady progress to reach the target they have for their project.

These theories are applicable, it’s easy to see how we can link them to adventure education and depending on the approach to learning the facilitator takes through briefs/debriefs, reflection, use of metaphors or simply ‘letting the mountains speak for themselves’ the learner may transfer the skills and knowledge….or…..they may not. After all, why is it that a participant displays teamwork and care for others during a camp experience, they may not do this back at school? (Beames, S., Brown, M. 2016).

Research into whether transfer occurs has proven hard to define, difficult to investigate, and perplexingly controversial (Packer, M. 2001 p. 493). There are a number of problems with the research into transfer with little empirical evidence to support the concept (Detterman, D., 1993)

Despite the low reliability and validity of some of the studies that have been done, there are some situations that transfer can occur according to Perkins,D &  Salomon, G. (1989). In ideal conditions (a laboratory classroom) transfer has been successful when there was instruction or intervention from the facilitator to show the learner the resemblance of the problems and leading the learner to make the connection.

In adventure education, this could be considered as ‘speaking for the experience’ or ‘front loading’ the experience. Detterman (1993) made the remark that guiding or telling subjects to use a principle or directing them to think about a previous exercise is not truly transfer but merely following instructions.

In my own workplace, I have found the concept of transfer difficult to apply. Yes, I have witnessed specific transfer from one adventure activity to another however non-specific and even more so metaphoric transfer is much harder to accomplish considering the context, relevance and relationship between the individual, their conscious state of mind at the time and the activity itself.

What we could be asking ourselves with regard to transfer of learning is how can we create authentic adventure education programmes that allow the participant to learn in the ‘real world’ and have relevance to day to day life rather than framing them metaphorically?

I liken learning to Beames & Brown (2016) ‘Learning is a messy affair, there is not a linear relationship between what might be experienced, the behaviours that one might display and long term learning’.

And furthermore, the challenge before us is to better understand the relationship between what is taught during adventure education programmes and the capabilities participants currently have and should develop in their own (non-adventure education) lives so as to create learning experiences that are authentic and meaningful (Anderson, Greeno, Reder, & Simon, 2000).

Recommended reading: Brown, M. (2010). Transfer: Outdoor Adventure Educations Achilles Heel? Changing participation as a viable option. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14 (1) 13-22. To further question whether transfer within outdoor adventure education should continue as an intended outcome.

References

Anderson, J., Greeno, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13.

Beames, S., Brown, M., (2016) Adventurous Learning, A pedagogy for a changing world. Routledge: New York.

Brown, M. (2010). Transfer: Outdoor Adventure Educations Achilles Heel? Changing participation as a viable option. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14 (1) 13-22

Detterman, D. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Gass, M. (1999). Transfer of learning in adventure programming. In Adventure Programming (Miles, J. & Priest, S.). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 10(4), 493-514.

Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Priest, S., Gass, M.A. (2005) Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming (2nd Ed) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics