• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Role of Theory, Research, and Evaluation in Adventure Education

Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 2004, 06:00 CDT

Some of the present approaches for studying adventure education are based on grounded theory, folk pedagogies, and existing social science theory. These approaches share some problems, including: (a) an overemphasis on outcomes without specifying processes, (b) a misunderstanding of how different types of evaluation contribute to theory, and (c) under-theorized evaluation and program models. As an alternative, program theory evaluation, which focuses on a "theory- program-outcome" model, in which all three components are specified simultaneously, can help avoid these mistakes while contributing a more sophisticated understanding of how programs have effects.

One of the conclusions Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards (1997) drew from their meta-analysis of adventure education outcomes was that the field of adventure education had matured. They argued that the results provided ample evidence that a wide array of outcomes do occur in adventure education and that future research should investigate the "theoretical concerns and processes that lead to positive changes" (p. 74). Similarly, other researchers have identified the need to focus on how adventure programs work (for a review see McKenzie, 2000).

It may seem odd to suggest that adventure education programs foster growth in the participants (i.e., outcomes) while at the same time asserting that there is little understanding of how this change occurs. It sounds incongruent, yet it is an accurate portrayal of the state of the field. There are philosophical ideas, programming principles, and a "folk pedagogy" of practitioner beliefs about how "adventure" works, but few explicit theoretical models, testable hypotheses, and little empirical evidence of specific adventure mechanisms that affect processes of individual change. Yet, there has been a continued interest in adventure education research, evidenced not only by recent articles in this and other journals (McKenzie, 2000; Wilson & Lipsey, 2000), but also by the number of research papers submitted to national conferences and efforts to disseminate research through web sites. For these reasons, this paper is an effort to complement this work by demonstrating the important role of a program theory in research designed to assess if, and how, programs work. The authors' focus is on theory-driven programs that are purposively designed to achieve educational and personal development goals.

In particular, we propose thinking about research and evaluation from a "theory-program-outcome" perspective, which emphasizes joint consideration of all three aspects in program design, evaluation, and research. We introduce a framework originally developed by Hamilton (1979) that clarifies the need for theory and illustrates a means for building evidence about how programs work. The authors then review the ways in which theory has been used in adventure education research, and identify limitations to the current conceptualizations of adventure education theory and evaluative research. Lerner's (1989,1995) metatheoretical model of human development is introduced as a way to envision a relationship between basic and applied evaluative research. Finally, program theory evaluation is presented as an applied means for building theory and assessing how actual programs work.

For the purpose of this discussion, adventure education is conceptualized as one form of experiential education characterized by: (a) the planned use of adventuresome activities, (b) a real- life activity or learning context, (c) goal-directed challenges that must be solved individually and in groups, (d) an outdoor or wilderness setting, (e) cooperative small group living and activity participation, (f) trained leaders/facilitators, and (g) specific, pre-planned educational or developmental goals. all of these program components can be understood as mechanisms of change or participant learning.

Theoretical Models: Organizing Devices

Raising the question of how adventure experiences result in particular changes, or learning is, at one level, a call for an explanatory understanding of the phenomenon of adventure-that is, a theory (or theories) of adventure. Theory is quite important in answering the question of how programs work because it is the explanatory framework. Theory specifies the mechanisms through which learning and personal changes occur in adventure education.

Theory can range from informed hunches (i.e., working hypotheses) to elaborate, well tested theories. At a basic level, a theory "describes unobservable structures, mechanisms, or processes and relates them to each other and to observable events" (Miller, 1993, p. 3). While research (and practice) can be carried out in an "atheoretical" manner, the question of a causal process is theoretical and it requires a priori assertions about the phenomenon of interest. It is also important to recognize that theories or theoretical models are, by their very nature, abstractions of reality. They refer to real-life situations and contexts, yet they simplify them and are imbued with assumptions (Britt, 1997). Theoretical models are organizing devices "defined by the conjunction of context, history, and social entities (individuals and social groups)" (Britt, p. 2). Moreover, practitioners, as well as researchers, use organizing devices.

The theory is the explanation, and social science has standards for assessing the veracity of a theory. Thus, at a fundamental level, when one begins with a "theory" one begins with an answer to the question of "how the program works," with research evidence either supporting or not supporting the mechanism described by the theory.

Building Theory: A Ladder of Evidence

Hamilton (1979, 1980) developed a framework for the evaluation of experiential education programs. he argued that it was more insightful to examine how educational programs have effects rather than ask what the effects are, and he proposed a four-tiered hierarchy of research questions about the empirical evidence of program impact. The hierarchy progresses from the least to the most compelling evidence. The four tiers are: (a) Do participants say they have been affected? (b) Is there other evidence of effects? (c) Is there evidence that the program was responsible for the effects? and (d) What about the program was responsible for the effects?

Hamilton's (1979) questions comprise a hierarchy of utility and difficulty. The first question examines whether or not participants respond to the program in an expected way and are able to report effects. Typically, program effects-positive and possibly negative- are assessed through the statements or testimonials of participants.

Hamilton's second level of evidence moves beyond participant descriptive reports to evidence provided by other sources. For example, in addition to the participant's perspective, instructor or parent assessments may be gathered. Triangulation of evidence is deemed more credible than a single source. This evidence is more credible if valid and reliable measures are used.

At the third level, the task of research is to demonstrate that the measured outcomes are attributable to participation in the program. As Hamilton (1979) stated, "simply measuring some sort of change among program participants provides no basis for inferring that the change resulted from participation in the program" (p. 6). In terms of research design, a means for ruling out extraneous variables must be addressed, and experimental and quasi- experimental designs are among the most powerful for doing so.

At the fourth level of Hamilton's (1979) hierarchy is evidence that the measured effects can be attributed to "properties of a program [italics added]" (p. 6). This level incorporates comparing effects of several types of learning programs so that participants and nonparticipants are compared at different levels of treatment. It may mean comparing different types of programs or comparing particular features of one type of program.

This idea of predicted variation in multiple outcomes is an important design element that incorporates theory and ties effects specifically to the program. The approach has been further elaborated by Trochim and Cook (1992) and stands in contrast to the Hattie et al. (1997) metaanalysis where 40 outcome categories were reported. The problem with a long list of categorized items used in meta-analyses is that they can be interpreted as characterizing adventure programs as powerful "antidotes" capable of a seemingly endless array of outcomes. Such a proposition is problematic because it risks representing adventure education programs as a generic "cure-all" treatment. Additionally, it builds evidence through volume of outcomes rather than specificity of the relationship between mechanisms and outcomes and does little to enhance understanding of the mechanisms of adventure.

To date, there is evidence of multiple program outcomes for adventure programs, but there is little understanding of what aspects of programs account for findings. That is, the systematic variation in outcomes is not associated with systematic variation in "treatment" as suggested in Hamilton's (1979) third and fourth tiers.

The authors suggest that Hamilton's (1\179) hierarchy is a useful foundation for thinking about the development and use of theory in adventure education research because it illustrates a pathway to the most compelling evidence for program impacts. The framework is also limited in a couple of ways and needs to be extended and related to recent advances in social science (Britt, 1997) and program theory (Rogers, 2000). First, while the framework suggests the role of theory, it does not fully describe the source for that theory nor indicate which program elements to systematically manipulate. Particularly challenging is ensuring that levels three and four are equated with theory and not just experimental design.

Second, the framework implies a linear path from level one to four. Yet, as Hamilton (1979) acknowledged, within professional fields and social science in general, there is "disagreement about basic paradigms, theories, designs, and methods" (p. 7). As these paradigms shift, researchers may begin to rethink the assumptions and methods employed at each of the levels of evidence. For example, rather than dismissing participant reports of learning as anecdotal evidence, new social science paradigms, such as narrative analysis or grounded theory, may be adopted and offer new insight into descriptive understandings of the phenomenon of adventure education (Beringer, 1990). Thus, it may be more helpful to view Hamilton's levels in a dialectic manner where new questions at any level of the hierarchy are theoretically pertinent and important, and extend up and down the hierarchy. Additionally, it is important to recognize that various designs may be employed to build and test theory and that these studies may be prerequisites to carefully controlled quasi-experimental and experimental designs.

Building and Using Theory: A Brief Review

As noted, many studies of adventure education do not adequately address the theoretical framework assumed. More work building and refining theory is needed, and there are at least three ways to approach this goal, including: (a) inductive approaches such as grounded theory; (b) greater focus on specifying and studying "working hypotheses;" and (c) refining the use of existing social science theory.

Grounded Theory and Other Qualitative Designs

Some researchers have used inductive designs as a means for exploring the dynamics of adventure program experiences. In this situation the researcher purposively enters the setting without well- developed and pre-existing hypotheses about the types and ways learning may occur with the aim of inducing theory-in-use, which emerges from data collection and analysis. The findings are compared and contrasted with existing social science theories (Creswell, 1994).

One of the limitations of this approach, as it has been employed, is that the working hypotheses or folk pedagogy that influence the character of adventure education programs Have not been adequately addressed. The qualitative work to date has largely been focused on documenting benefits, and discussing and justifying them in regard to dominant social science theories rather than to the folk pedagogies assumed to lead to those benefits. This may be due, in part, to a misunderstanding of the role of grounded theory in an overall program of research, a fragmented and limited literature not widely available, the lack of specificity in the existing folk theories, or confounding the philosophical issues of the theory of science with the use of qualitative designs. As the multiple design options in qualitative research become more widely understood they may be more readily employed to answer both descriptive and explanatory research questions (see Yin, 1994).

Dominant Folk Pedagogies About Educative Adventure Experiences

In a recent synthesis of the literature McKenzie (2000) identified six elements of adventure education that have influences or effects on participants: (a) physical environment, (b) activities, (c) processing, (d) the group, (e) instructors, and (f) the participant. This list is largely consistent with the list of elements discussed in the first part of this paper and early theoretical work (Walsh & Golins, 1976). McKenzie summarized some of the basic assumptions associated with each of these elements and suggested future research questions that could be explored to further elaborate theory about effects of these elements.

McKenzie's (2000) review, while a nice synthesis of the key concepts found in the literature, also represents a weakness of the existing literature. Many of the folk pedagogies are highly idiosyncratic, lack specificity, and rarely provide direct implications for measurement. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence supporting the assertions. Future research will require further development of the theoretical basis for each of the program components as well as the elaboration of specific activity conditions that produce particular experiences.

Using Existing Social Science Theory to Explain the Adventure Experience

In an effort to use more established theories in research on adventure education, researchers have often relied on a variety of social science theories to guide a study. One of the most common ways that theory is used in evaluation research is to use the theory associated with a desired program outcome variable as the explanatory theory of change for the program (Finney & Moos, 1992). This "black box" syndrome is illustrated in Figure IA-researchers have adopted valid and reliable outcome measures as a means to theoretically ground the study, but they largely ignore theory associated with the processes that lead to the effects.

While McKenzie (2000) incorporated some aspects of existing theories, more thorough treatment of social psychological theories can be found in the literature (Ewert, 1989; Garvey, 1999; Klint, 1999). Using self-concept as an example, the approach works as follows: A well-designed study may incorporate a valid and reliable measure of self-concept, and the findings may indicate that after an adventure education experience, participants' level of self-concept is higher than nonparticipants. These study findings are then usually discussed only in relation to the theory of self-concept and there is little discussion of what aspects of the adventure experience account for the findings or post hoc guesses are offered. The assumption underlying this approach is that the program planners and leaders intuitively know how to select and use adventure activities to influence the mechanism associated with self-concept. For example, researchers often make assumptions about what aspects of the program experience are challenging. Yet the experience of challenge may be associated with a breadth of program elements, not just those prescribed to be challenging. Thus, explaining how programs work requires more than good research design. It requires specific explanatory theories tied to a detailed understanding of the program components and context (see Fetterman & Bowman, 2002).

Figure IA.

Black box model: Program mechanisms unspecified.

Figure IB.

Model with conceptual link between immediate and distal outcomes.

A more complex way of looking at the application of existing social theory to the study of adventure education is to merge theory related to elements of the adventure program with the processes underlying the outcome one desires to affect. Working hypotheses of the adventure experience would be integrated with knowledge about the kinds of things that change level of self-concept. As illustrated in part B of Figure 1, there is the need to link the immediate impacts of an adventure education program with the mechanisms impacting the distal outcome of self-concept. In this example, self-concept is treated as a distal outcome based on the premise that there may be other immediate outcomes more directly associated with the adventure experience.

Both the elements of the program experience and the etiology of the distal outcome must be understood and grounded in theory. If this approach is used, there is a need to discuss past research on self-concept and identify the kinds of things (conditions or antecedents) that social science research suggests would substantively change it, and how the adventure program affects those conditions.

The challenge is to build a "theory of adventure" rather than only testing an existing social science theory in an adventure context. Hypothesizing immediate or proximal outcomes and distal outcomes clarifies the common and distinct elements of adventure education programs, alternative programs, and the social science theory. As illustrated in Figure 2, two programs (one adventure- based and one not) may each have goals related to improving self- concept. Thus, they share a common aim, but have unique experiences, as well as unique activities. Additionally, each has context- specific explanations of the mechanisms that impact self-concept and, again, these may be either unique or common. Knowledge of the content area, (i.e., self-concept) is unique and separate from the program goals and mechanisms.

A benefit of conceptualizing the research process in this manner is that adopting a more sophisticated understanding of existing social science theories can serve to differentiate the essence of adventure from that of other theories and encourages reassessment of working hypotheses or unexamined assumptions of adventure practice (i.e., folk pedagogy). As illustrated in Hamilton's (1979) framework, research designs that investigate how manipulations of program components impact an outcome like self-concept would generate empirical evidence of what exactly it is about programs that lead to desired effects.

Figure 2.

Distinguishing unique and common experiences and components of existing theory: Adventure and alternative programs.

A Model of Adventure

An alternative way to use social science theory is to create a mo\del of adventure by explicitly defining its relationship to established theories. Priest's model (1999a, p. 159) used existing social science theories to construct a model of adventure. he proposed a modification and extension of optimal experience and theories of play to create a theory of adventure. The model is based on the construct of challenge as interplay between risk and competence. For the purpose of this discussion, it is not necessary to restate the model. What is important is recognizing that the model provides an explanatory framework for optimal learning conditions associated with this theory of adventure. Unfortunately, while practitioners have embraced aspects of Priest's model, we are unaware of any empirical test of it.

Differentiating Theory from Research Design

As Finney and Moos (1992) articulated, understanding how programs work requires examining issues of both theory and research design. As illustrated in the previous discussion, whether inductive or deductive methods are employed, clearly defining and testing the tenets of the adventure experience, as a unique process, is a crucial step in understanding how programs work. There are strengths and limitations to both inductive and deductive approaches (Rowley, 1987) and theory is integral to both. However, in our view, theory is often benignly overlooked in favor of method.

According to Finney & Moos (1992), experimental design is often erroneously heralded over all other types of research because design or method is given credence over theory. They observed that evaluative researchers in many fields have often preferred experimental design and existing social science theories even though conditions may warrant exploring alternative designs and less elaborate theories. Theoretical specificity of existing social science theories may not be fully established, and in cases where theory is relatively elaborate, the theory may not match current adventure education program models (Finney & Moos). Additionally, multiple theories may be needed to explain varying elements of educative programs (Weiss, 2000). That is, one theory may be needed to explain how individuals enter the program and another to explain how the program influences change (Finney & Moos).

Opening the "black box" to investigate the mechanisms underlying adventure education means that both theory and design must be jointly elaborated. The conceptual model that is implied is using research to examine theory-program-outcome jointly in a given design, rather than a design driven primarily by outcomes without specification of the mechanisms that led to effects.

Elaboration of theory or building new knowledge has often been associated exclusively with the concept of basic research. A basic and applied dichotomy has existed and program evaluation has been viewed as "an abbreviated form of applied rather than basic research" (Priest, 1999b, p. 315). According to Priest, the aim of evaluation is to assess the merit of a program, whereas basic research develops new knowledge, implying that only basic research will elaborate theory. However, this traditional view is being questioned and research on theory-driven program evaluation is being advanced as another way to build theory.

Rethinking the Basic and Applied Research Dichotomy

Richard Lerner's work on developmental contextualism as a metatheoretical model of human development has directly addressed the beliefs that have led to a "basic versus applied" research dichotomy (Lerner 1989, 1995; Lerner et al., 1994). Lerner has argued that beliefs about how humans develop have direct implications for research, programs, and policy (Lerner, 1995). A foundational tenet of developmental contextualism is that humans develop in context as a result of a dynamic bi-directional process between person and context. One of the outgrowths of this view of human development is that "to understand the basic process of human development-the process involved in the changing relations between individuals and contexts-both descriptive and explanatory research must be conducted within the actual ecology of people's lives" (Lerner et al., 1994, p. 256). As Lerner et al. further described,

The knowledge generation-application avenue is not a one-way street. Indeed, just as the practicing physician is often a source of issues that medical scientists then address, colleagues in the policy and program delivery arenas...can provide invaluable feedback both about how the fruits of scholarship are being received and used and what new concerns might be addressed, (p. 264)

What Lerner has argued is that a new standard be applied to research. This standard has implications for what has traditionally been referred to as a basic and applied dichotomy. The implication is that programs and evaluations must be theory driven, and that basic research must deal with behavior as it occurs in real life contexts.

Since explanatory (i.e., basic) research involves manipulations of factors theorized to cause variation in human functioning, and as developmental "contextualism" implies that these studies need to be conducted in real life contexts, there is a convergence between explanatory research-based interventions and ongoing actual educative programs that seek to influence positive development. Programs designed in accordance with developmental contextualist principles represent "natural experiments...and the evaluations of such activities becomes a central focus in the developmental contextualist research agenda" (Lerner et al., 1994, p. 259).

Based on this view, there is a greater need to integrate theory throughout program design, delivery, and evaluation so that well designed evaluations may serve as optimal empirical tests of theory.

The shift in thinking proposed by Lerner (1995) and proponents of program theory is to combine issues of implementation and the theory of change (how outcomes are achieved). Thus, process incorporates not just the question of whether the program was implemented in the way prescribed, but it requires that a process theory of change be articulated that corresponds to the program components and issues of implementation. In this way problems of implementation are distinct from problems in the theory that prescribe how change occurs.

Asserting that theory should drive program design is not new (see, for example, Lewin, 1951). It comes at a time, however, when policy makers and funding agencies are also calling for increasing evidence that educational and social programs result in measurable outcomes (Easterling, 2000). Given this state of affairs and the issues of research designed to build evidence that adventure education works, we propose that program theory evaluations are an important source for theory development in the field of adventure education, and that designing them is as a necessary competency for adventure education practice.

Program Theory as Applied Developmental Science

Program theory evaluation (PTE) consists of developing "an explicit theory or model of how the program causes the intended or observed outcomes and an evaluation that is at least partly guided by this model" (Rogers, Hacsi, Petrosino, & Huebner, 2000, p. 5). PTE "tests the links between what programs assume their activities are accomplishing and what actually happens at each small step along the way" (Weiss, 2000, p. 35). It is conceptually similar to other theory driven evaluation models that require that a specific "causal" model be articulated, such as logic models and the generic input-process-outcome model used by United Way (Rogers et al., 2000; Weiss, 1972).

The development of a program theory requires unpacking the assumptions or working hypotheses of the adventure experience. Conceptually, mediating variables make explicit the "mechanisms by which program activities are understood to contribute to the intended outcomes" (Rogers, 2000, p. 209). A program model is created comprised of "program activities, the intended outcomes, and the mechanisms by which program activities are understood to lead to intended outcomes" (Rogers, p. 212). This model is the program theory, and evaluation is designed to test aspects of this theory. Program theory refers to a framework that guides practice, and is "a specification of what must be done to achieve the desired goals, what other important impacts may also be anticipated, and how these goals and impacts could be generated" (Chen & Rossi, 1992, p. 43). Subsumed within the program theory are the contributions of various program components and the context characteristics or activities that are associated with the adventure experience.

The first inclination may be to develop a grand program theory with all program aspects inter-related. However, it may be more useful to begin by conceptualizing and examining the mechanisms and program processes with the strongest "theoretical" (i.e., working hypotheses in the adventure education literature) support and those that program directors and leaders agree upon.

Figure 3 represents a hypothetical, sample program theory model of an adventure based freshman student orientation program. Three key program components consistent with the adventure education literature are identified: wilderness setting, adventure activity (backpacking), and cooperative group living. Consistent with goals established for an adventure-based orientation, (as well as other types of student orientations) the program aims to develop skills and attitudes that will assist a student's positive transition to college. Based on typical program goals of enhanced self-concept and social bonding with peers, five outcomes were identified to be indicative of positive integration into college life and consistent with program emphasis.

Figure 3.

Sample program theory for an adventure-bade college student orientation.

Three of the outcomes were derived from Harter's (1999) theory of se\lf-concept, which incorporates domain-specific competencies along with a more global sense of self-concept. Therefore, along with global self-concept as a distal program outcome, social and physical competence was included. Given the large emphasis on the social goals of the program, two additional social outcomes were established. Perceived peer support represents the degree to which students feel they have a social network to turn to and time with trip group members is a behavioral measure of post-trip time spent with others that participated in the orientation. In practice, these distal outcome measures would likely be measured four to eight weeks into the first semester.

To construct the program theory, we had to link the program components of wilderness, backpacking, and cooperative group living with proximal outcomes (i.e., mediators) that link to the distal outcomes. Evident within this framework are some of the common folk pedagogies or working hypotheses about adventure-based education. For example, wilderness has been described as a novel or unfamiliar setting affecting participants' sense of challenge. Wilderness has also been hypothesized to have a more cleansing, spiritual, or peaceful quality. Conceptually these would appear to be distinct constructs and to affect different ends.

Backpacking is often described as a challenging outdoor activity; however, it is quite plausible that there is a physical element reflecting the physical demands of carrying a pack and hiking miles through rugged terrain and a cognitive-emotional element having to do with the mental stress or uncertainty. Therefore, these were conceptualized as separate constructs.

Group living results in shared living activities, and decision- making reflects an interdependent aspect of the experience. As illustrated in Figure 3, the impact of group living and experiencing the wilderness as peaceful, are both hypothesized to affect the participant's sense of trust. In contrast, the novel and challenging elements are hypothesized to impact a sense of personal accomplishment and success.

Since a sense of personal accomplishment is hypothesized as an aspect of personal agency or initiative, it was theorized that it affects global self-worth, physical competence, and social competence. However, it is less clear that personal accomplishment would lead to perceived peer support or time spent with group members after the trip. Therefore, there is no path connecting these constructs.

Peer support and shared time or activities with group member post- trip could reasonably be affected by both a sense of trust and greater appreciation or awareness of trust. In this case, trust may affect social competence, perceived peer support, and time spent with trip members post-trip. A connection between trust, representing a relationship between individuals, and global self- worth and physical competence is not supported theoretically.

While the adventure-based student orientation program likely includes other program components and mechanisms, there is some value to concentrating on a manageable set of components and constructs (Rogers, 2000). These components and mechanisms serve to focus both practice and research. In the case of practice, leaders now have very clear and specific ends to focus on. In terms of research, both qualitative and quantitative evaluative research could be carried out. For example, qualitative methods could be used to assess how participants experience and make meaning of the varying program components. It would be useful to know whether participants experience the wilderness as peaceful, unfamiliar, or both? Additionally, multivariate techniques could be used to assess the hypothesized paths in the program model (see Sibthorp & Ewert, 2000).

Conceptualization of the causal pathways to outcomes is a difficult endeavor, programs are inherently complex and there may be no single program theory (Rogers, 2000). It should also be noted that program theory evaluation is not a replacement for well- designed theoretically driven, experimental research. As Cook (2000) stated, program theory cannot be cast as a short-cut design replacing experimental research despite its confirmatory and causal elements (Reynolds, 1998).

However, PTE does offer an approach for elaborating adventure theory. The use of PTE facilitates specifying the key tenets of adventure education and displaying them in terms of program mechanisms thereby reducing some of the vagueness associated with philosophical writing and folk pedagogies. The program theory model builds a common language between practice and research.

Concluding Comments

Priest (1999b) presented a pyramid of research somewhat similar in meaning to Hamilton's (1979) hierarchy and he argued that research in the field of adventure programming has been primarily descriptive or designed to predict changes in behavior. What have been missing, according to Priest, are middle ground examinations of "parts of a program associated with specific human behaviors" (Priest, 1996, p. 315). We contend that the working hypotheses associated with adventure education are driving practice and in many cases the tests of these links could be readily investigated along with more traditional methods of evaluation (Priest, 2001).

Hattie et al. (1997) critiqued the quality of research as well as the preponderance of purely outcome studies conducted without adequate explication of process. In order to move to this next level of research, greater specification of theory, advances in measurement, and well craft ed inductive and deductive research designs are needed. PTE, within the recognized limitations, may be a useful tool in the effort to build theory. Well-crafted PTEs have the potential to help build a body of evidence of adventure theory and enhance measurement of constructs related to adventure education.

References

Beringer, A. (1990). Understanding moral development and environmental values through experience. Journal of Experiential Education, 13(3), 29-34.

Britt, D. W. (1997). A conceptual introduction to modeling: Qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chen, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1992). Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations. New York: Greenwood Press.

Cook, T. D. (2000). The false choice between theory-based evaluation and experimentation. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 27-34). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Easterling, D. (2000). Using outcome evaluation to guide grant making: Theory, reality, and possibilities. Nonprofit and Voluntary sector Quarterly, 29, 482-486.

Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models, and theories. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.

Ewert, A., & Sibthorp, J. (2000). Multivariate analysis in experiential education: Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Experiential Education, 23(2), 108-117.

Fetterman, D., & Bowman, C. (2002). Experiential education and empowerment evaluation: Mars rover educational program case example. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 286-295.

Finney, J. W., & Moos, R. H. (1992). Four types of theory that can guide treatment evaluations. In H. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 49-69). New York: Greenwood Press.

Garvey, D. (1999). Outdoor adventure programming and moral development. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 133-139). State College, PA: Venture.

Hamilton, S. F. (1979, April). Evaluating experiential learning programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED170357)

Hamilton, S. F. (1980). Experiential learning programs for youth. American Journal of Education, 88, 179-215.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and outward bound: Out-of-olass experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67, 43- 87.

Klint, K. A., (1999). New directions for inquiry into self- concept and adventure experiences. In. J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 163-168). State College, PA: Venture.

Lerner, R. M. (1989). Developmental contextualism and the life- span view of person-context interaction. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 217239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). America's youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. M., Miller, J. R., Knott, J. H., Corey, K. E., Bynum, T. S., Hoopfer, L. C., et al. (1994). Integrating scholarship and outreach in human development research, policy, and service: A developmental contextual perspective. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 249-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5, 19-28.

Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Priest, S. (1999a).The adventure experience paradigm. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 159-162). State College, PA: Venture.

Priest, S. (1999b). Research in adventure programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 309-317). State College, PA: Venture.

Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. Journal of Experiential Ed\ucation, 24(1), 34-40.

Reynolds, A. J. (1998). Confirmatory program evaluation: A method for strengthening causal inference. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 203-221.

Rogers, P. J. (2000). Program theory: Not whether programs work but how they work. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 209-232). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Rogers, P. J., Hacsi, T. A., Petrosino, A., & Huebner, T. A. (Eds.). (2000). Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. (New Directions for Evaluation, Series No. 87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rowley, J. (1987). Adventure education and qualitative research. Journal of Experiential Education, 10(2), 8-10.

Trochim, W. M. K., & Cook, J. (1992). Pattern matching in theory- driven evaluation: A field example from psychiatric rehabilitation. In H. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 49-69). New York: Greenwood Press.

Walsh, V., & Golins, G. (1976). The exploration of the Outward Bound process. Garrison, NY: Outward Bound.

Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 35-45). (New Directions for Evaluation, Series No. 87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 1-12.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Baldwin is an Assistant Professor in the Human Services Program at Aurora University, Aurora, IL. Persing is a doctoral candidate in the School of hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management at Penn State University. Magnuson is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Leisure, Youth, Ef Human Services at the University of Northern Iowa.

Copyright Association for Experiential Education 2004

More News in this Category