1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Adventure isn't hanging on a rope off the side of a mountain.

Adventure is an attitude that we must apply to the day to day obstacles of life --

facing new challenges, seizing new opportunities,

testing our resources against the unknown and in the process,

discovering our own unique potential.

--John Amatt

Children in Singapore are brought up in an environment of growing

affluence, urban dwelling and excessive television watching. The effects of

modern living in a contemporary society like Singapore are an increased level of

obesity, low level of fitness, a lack of social and affective development among

adolescents in Singapore. This trend has been a cause of concern for the

Singapore government and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, has on more than one

occasion, called for Singaporeans to return to the rugged society (Straits Times, 13

Mar 1990).

In March 1990, it was reported that from trend analysis, one out of five

Secondary four boys in 1993 would be obese if the situation remained unchecked.

PM Goh cautioned that if Singaporeans were not rugged, fit and healthy as a

society, they would not be able to withstand the pressure of competition, endure

the rigours of military training, and survive the heat of battles (Sunday Times, 11

Mar 1990).

Arising from the push towards a rugged society in 1990, the Ministry of

Education (MOE), Singapore, endorsed a policy to ensure that every secondary

 2

school student goes through at least one residential camping experience in his or

her secondary school years. Outdoor education programmes such as camps have

since been established as important aspects of the education system in Singapore,

integral to the holistic development of our pupils. Camping is, by far, the most

popular outdoor education programme activity offered by schools. A survey

conducted in 1991 by the then Extra 1-Curricular Activities Branch of MOE,

revealed that 98% of primary schools conducted camps with activities such as

treasure hunts, nature rambles, camp crafts and folk dancing (ECAC, 1991).

Along with the surge in the number of schools embarking on such

camping programmes, it is important for schools to be able to identify the precise

nature of the outcomes expected from such outdoor education and camping

programmes, and to prove that these expected outcomes have been achieved.

Otherwise, it may be difficult to provide evidence to convince decision-makers

and budget holders of the importance of such experiences over other less

resource-intensive educational programmes. It is therefore essential to investigate

whether the pupils actually benefit from participating in outdoor camping

experiences organized by schools, as compared to pupils who do not go through

similar experiences.

Since the inception of outdoor education and camping programmes in

schools, many claims have been made with regards to their effectiveness. The

precise nature of their benefits and how they can be measured remain unclear

(Harris, 2000). Through the years, there have been numerous studies by

Henderson (2001); Marsh (1999); Marsh, Richards, & Barnes (1986). McCalden

1
The term “Extra-Curricular” has been replaced by “Co-Curricular” since year 1999.
 3

(2002); McKenzie (2000); McRoberts (1994) and Tan (2002) that examined

specific benefits of outdoor activities on such aspects as self-concepts, self-

efficacy, physical fitness and academic success. There have, however, been very

few studies addressing the issues of how outdoor education programmes and

camps impact on life-effectiveness, a measure of perceived personal effectiveness

in a variety of psychological and behavioural phenomena (Neill et al., 2003).

It is important to look not only at where outdoor education has been, but

what people are learning from it today and where it may lead in the future

(Stenger, 2001). More recently, the educational landscape of Singapore has also

evolved into one that is more responsive to the new challenges of a global

economy and unpredictable changes. Acting Minister for Education, Mr Tharman

Shanmugaratnam, in his opening address at the Co-Curricular Activities (CCA)

Conference in 2003, emphasized the need to prepare our young by nurturing in

them life skills and attributes such as tenacity, a robust and flexible attitude to life

and more of a spirit of ‘can do’, in order to survive the new economy.

If outdoor education and camping experiences could indeed contribute to

positive development in these areas, they certainly have great value in an

economy like Singapore. Thus, the belief that outdoor education and camping

experiences offer excellent opportunities to develop these life skills ought to be

explored further. According to Neill et al. (2003), life-effectiveness which is

defined as the psychological and behavioral aspects of human functioning that

determine a person’s proficiency in any given situation, can be measured by the

Life Effectiveness Questionnaire-Version H (LEQ-H). Therefore, this study aims

to offer some insights on the impact of a typical 3-day camping experience

 4

provided by Singapore schools, on the life effectiveness of Primary five pupils, as

measured by the LEQ-H.

Operational Definitions

Two key definitions exist in this study. Outdoor education has enjoyed a

long history, beginning with camping education and school camping experiences

(Richardson & Simmons, 1996). Camping is therefore, viewed as one dimension

of the total spectrum of outdoor education (Boyes, 2000). Life effectiveness is a

measure of how competent a person perceives him/herself to be in a variety of

areas necessary for success in life (Neill et al., 2003) and is measured by using the

Life Effectiveness Questionnaire - Version H (LEQ-H) (Neill, 2000). The

instrument measures the following eight dimensions: Achievement Motivation,

Active Initiative, Emotional Control, Intellectual Flexibility, Self-confidence,

Social Competence, Task Leadership, and Time Management (Neill, 2000).

School-Based Outdoor Education

The beginnings of school-based camping and outdoor education can be

traced to the 1800s. From 1823 to 1834, Round Hill, an all-male school located in

Massachusetts, offered two hours of physical education and outdoor activity per

day. In the early 1860s, Frederick William Gunn initiated camping as part of the

educational curriculum. It was not until the 1940s that overnight school camps

during the school year became more popular. The earliest programmes in

Michigan, Texas, Missouri, and California paved the way for other schools to

begin including outdoor education as part of the curricular (Stenger, 2001).

In 1941, Kurt Hahn began a programme of ropes obstacle course that was

meant to simulate ship settings at sea for young sailors (Priest & Gass, 1997). This
 5

month-long programme was designed to accelerate the development of

independence and initiative. Its success led to the establishment of Outward

Bound schools (Hattie et al., 1997) and a global explosion of programmes that

modelled after them. From the late 1970s, there was a programmatic shift in

school–based outdoor education programmes in the United States. Organisations

such as Outward Bound, National Outdoor Leadership School, and Project

Adventure become more popular, many outdoor providers started including

adventure / challenge / risk activities as part of their curricular (Stenger, 2001).

Over the years, outdoor education programmes have evolved from simple

camping experiences in the outdoors to complicated educational processes that are

purposefully planned and implemented (Tan, 2002; O’Donnell, 2002). They may

also range from simple nature study programmes to camping skills, to in-depth

environmental education programmes, to high adventure programmes or a

combination of these components (Stenger, 2001).

Adventure-based Programmes in Singapore schools

Some of the providers of outdoor education and adventure-based

programmes locally are Outward Bound Singapore, the Singapore Adventure

Team, the Singapore Mountaineering Federation, the Singapore International

Foundation, the National Community Leadership Institute, the National Youth

Council and other private companies. They provide activities such as camps,

expeditions, hikes, kayaking, abseiling, rock climbing, ropes obstacles course,

sailing and a variety of trust-building games.

School adventure-based programmes in Singapore come under the

authority of the CCA Branch of MOE. Adventure-based camping programmes

 6

have been part of the co-curricular component of the education system for a

number of years. The policy introduced in 1990 of providing every secondary

school pupil of about 50, 000 pupils per year with a camping experience, was

however, not extended to pupils in the primary school. It was believed that the

same cohorts of pupils would go through similar experiences in their secondary

school career (CCAB, 2001).

Currently, almost all schools in Singapore embark on some form of

adventure-based programmes, ranging from challenge ropes courses to

orienteering, for their pupils. An average of 70 primary schools of about 12, 000

pupils go through school camping programmes at the MOE Adventure Centres

yearly. The programmes for primary schools usually span over a three-day period,

accommodating to about 100 to 200 pupils each time. The design and nature of

schools’ programmes vary from school to school, largely dependent on the

availability of individual school’s financial, manpower and physical resources.

The camps conducted by the schools in this study are typically adventure-based

and included activities such as camp craft, campfire, orienteering, team-building

or initiative games, challenge ropes courses, abseiling and climbing.

Many primary schools hold their camps for primary five pupils, rather than

other levels of pupils. One reason cited is that lower primary pupils (primary one

to three) are deemed too young for the rigours of such camps. Another reason is

the lack of suitable facilities and equipment that cater to the needs of this age

group. In addition, primary four pupils have streaming examinations while the

primary six pupils go through the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).
 7

Therefore, camps were not usually planned for these two cohorts of pupils as their

main focus would be on the preparing for these National examinations.

MOE Adventure Centres

In order to meet emerging needs for safety and quality adventure

programmes for students, MOE developed a total of three adventure centres over

the past ten years. Each of these outdoor learning centres has been upgraded to

provide adventure facilities to cater to the needs of schools’ outdoor education and

adventure-based programmes. These facilities include: (a) team-building / creative

problem-solving stations; (b) a high tower for rock-climbing, abseiling and zip-

line; (c) challenge ropes course; and (d) ample space for orienteering.

During the camps, initial training was given in the areas of belaying and

safety. The students usually operate in groups of 15 to 20, which was acceptable

for upper primary students. While physical activity was part of the programme,

the primary goal was not fitness. Rather, the claim was that through these

activities, students learn about confidence; goal-setting; choice and consequence;

responsibility; teamwork; craft; and skills in an enjoyable manner.

Researcher Background

The researcher is a senior education officer of the Ministry of Education’s

(MOE’s) Outdoor Education unit, pursuing research leading towards a Master’s

degree at the National Institute of Education of Nanyang Technological

University. During her term with MOE as an outdoor education specialist, the

researcher’s scope of duties included developing, conducting and facilitating a

wide range of outdoor education and adventure-based courses for students and

teachers.
 8

Besides developing and overseeing schools’ adventure-based and outdoor

education programmes, the researcher is also responsible for the management of

the MOE adventure centres. The adventure centres are equipped with facilities for

activities such as rock-climbing, kayaking, Challenge Ropes Courses (CRC) and

abseiling. She is also an assessor for teacher instructors who wished to conduct

activities such as CRC, abseiling, rock-climbing and kayaking at the MOE

adventure centres. In addition, she plays an advisory role to more than 40 schools

located in the East Zone of Singapore. Imbued with the diverse range of

experiences and knowledge related to the outdoor education field, the author is

fully conversant with most aspects of schools’ adventure-based camping

programmes in Singapore.

Rationale for the Study

Given the rapid increase in adventure programmes that utilize challenge in

the outdoors as an integral and critical part of their educational method, it is worth

asking about their effectiveness (Cooper, 1994; Crompton & Sellar, 1981; Hattie

et al., 1997). The considerable number of students, staff, time and expenditure

committed to schools’ adventure programmes and even a policy to ensure its

implementation underscores the important role it plays in the education set-up of

Singapore. Understanding what happened to the children during an adventure

programme, and whether the outcomes were in line with what were reported in

psychological theories would help provide important information to the benefits

of such programmes (Tan, 2002; Neill, 1994b).

Today, we live in an age where the speed of change is unparalleled. This

shift towards a knowledge-based society will have enormous implications for

 9

education in Singapore. It requires our educators to constantly re-evaluate the

goals and processes in education so that we may be responsive to the ever-

changing external landscape. It also means that our schools need to prepare our

students for a demanding, and a constantly changing workplace. Our young will

be well prepared if they acquire a strong foundation of knowledge in school, learn

how to communicate well and develop the ability to interact with different people.

Other “key skills for the future” include the knack of being flexible, the ability to

think on their feet and be innovative and enterprising.

Neill (2000) and Hattie et al. (1997) classified these “key skills for the

future” as life effectiveness. Essentially, it refers to how an individual acts,

responds and thinks in a variety of situations and it is proposed that the greater

one’s personal effectiveness, the more likely that person is to achieve success in

life. Indeed, outdoor education and adventure-based programmes provide

excellent opportunities for these key skills of life effectiveness to be taught and

caught (Moote & Wodarski, 1997; Neill & Heubeck, 1998).

The objective of this study, therefore, is to measure the impact of three-day

adventure-based programmes on Singaporean primary five pupils’ life

effectiveness, as measured by the LEQ-H.

Significance of the Study

Given the emerging role that outdoor and adventure-based programmes

play in the Singapore education system, the findings of this study could help

provide some insights into using outdoor education as a conduit for acquiring life

effectiveness. The significance of the study was further emphasized by the dearth

of local research and information on outdoor adventure programmes and life

 10

effectiveness. The majority of the participants in research related to outdoor and

adventure education were conducted with Caucasians and adults (Tan, 2002).

Why is it crucial that comparisons are made with the findings of local

studies? Programmes in various countries and regions make cultural assumptions

about participants and the relative importance of various elements and processes.

Even attitudes towards risk, communicating of feelings, and relating to the nature

vary widely. Culture also influences important programme characteristics such

length, location, and types of activities, just to name a few. There is an acute lack

of research and information on adventure-based programmes in local context. To

date, only two local studies by Siow (2000) and Tan (2002) that examined

outcomes of adventure-based programmes were found to be close to being

relevant. There were no local studies that dealt with how outdoor education

impact on life effectiveness.

Siow (2000) investigated the effects of adventure-based group work

programme on juvenile delinquents, particularly their self-esteem. A three-day

outdoor camp comprising activities such as high ropes courses, climbing,

abseiling and kayaking was designed. The experimental group and control group

consisted of 25 and 14 participants respectively (aged 14 – 17), and were

previously convicted of criminal offences. The Self–Esteem Checklist was

employed to measure self-esteem changes prior to and after the camp. Results

showed that increases in self-esteem were not significant.

Tan (2002) examined the self-concept changes prior to and after the

adventure programme. The sample consisted of 66 primary pupils (38 male, 28

female), aged 11 on the average. Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children

 11

(SPPC) was used to measure the five domains of a child’s self-concept and a sixth

independent judgement of one’s global self–worth. Qualitative methods of

observations and interviews were also employed to document the children’s

experiences. The study found sufficient evidence to support adventure programme

as an effective intervention that could enhance self-concept of children (p< .05).

The studies on life effectiveness using the LEQ-H were largely carried out

on Australian population and were mostly on Outward Bound School

programmes. Clearly, there were limited research on Asians and local school

children and this represents a knowledge gap in the local context. This is evident

by: (a) the lack of literature on outdoor education such as the “Journal of

Experiential Education” and the “Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor

Leadership” in the local libraries; (b) to date, only two local studies by Siow

(2000) and Tan (2000) have been conducted to examine the outcomes of outdoor

and adventure education; and (c) there was no local study linked to life

effectiveness or that has made used of LEQ.

Furthermore, during the author’s five-year stint with MOE, she found that

there exist a knowledge gap in the fields of outdoor and adventure education,

evident even amongst educators, school leaders and even senior management

officials. Some of these teachers and senior management officials whom she came

in contact with, associated outdoor education with specific outdoor pursuits or

‘dare-devil’ acts such as “bungee-jumping”.

It was therefore, hoped that this study could provide some additional

insights on outdoor education and how it could impact on life effectiveness of our

primary five pupils in the Singapore context. Specifically, this study was to
 12

examine the impact of a three-day adventure-based school camping programme

on primary five Singaporean pupils’ perceptions of their personal life

effectiveness. In this study, the main area of interest to the researcher was the

impact of the three-day school camping programme conducted by the respective

primary schools on Life Effectiveness Questionnaire-Version H (LEQ-H) scores.

Delimitations

The scope of the study was delineated as follows:

This study sampled 345 primary five students from four primary schools

in Singapore; 189 of them from three primary schools participated in three-day

adventure-based programmes at the MOE Adventure Centre while the other 156

of them from one primary school acted as controls for this study.

1. Only eight specific domains of life effectiveness were differentiated and there

were three questions per domain.

2. The research design was a pre- and post-test, employing Neill’s (1999) Life-

Effectiveness Questionnaire-Version H (LEQ-H) to measure life effectiveness.

Definitions of Terms

The following are defined for specific application in this study:

Achievement Motivation: “How motivated a person is to achieve some

goal or objective” (Neill et al., 2003, p.6).

Active initiative: “A dynamic ability to actively and independently initiate

new actions and thoughts in a variety of personal and work settings” (Neill et al.,

2003, p.8).

Adventure-based school camping programme: Residential outdoor

education programme in which school participate in adventure/challenge/risk

 13

activities such as challenge ropes courses, abseiling, rock-climbing, zip-line, and

orienteering at an adventure centre, where they spend one or two nights, as part of

their curriculum.

Emotional control: “ A person’s ability to deal with emotions under

difficult or demanding situations”(Neill et al., 2003, p.7).

Intellectual Flexibility: “ A person’s ability to appropriately adjust their

views to accommodate and act upon the ideas of others” (Neill et al., 2003, p.7).

Life-effectiveness: “ Psychological and behavioral aspects of human

functioning which determines a person’s proficiency in any given situation” as

measured by the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire-Version H (LEQ-H) (Neill et

al., 2003, p.5).

Outdoor education: “ It follows the experiential philosophy of learning by

doing. It takes place primarily, but not exclusively, through involvement with the

natural environment. In outdoor education, the emphasis for a subject of learning

is placed on relationships concerning people and natural resources” (Priest &

Gass, 1997, p.17).

Programme: “A designated course, or courses of study, and

interchangeable with curriculum” (Stenger, 2001, p.15).

Self-Confidence: “An individual’s general confidence of success in work

and personal situations. Closely related to self-esteem, self efficacy, and self-

concept” (Neill et al., 2003, p.8).

Social Competence: “The ability to function effectively in social

situations, also called interpersonal competence and social skills” (Neill et al.,

2003, p.6).
 14

Task Leadership: “ An individual’s ability to take control of situations,

motivate and enthuse others towards common goals, and ensure a productive and

harmonious outcome when there is a situational need or opportunity” (Neill et al.,

2003, p.7).

Time Management: “An individual’s ability to plan and make efficient use

of time” (Neill et al., 2003, p.6).

 15

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

All explorers are seeking something they have lost.

It is seldom that they find it,

and more seldom still that the attainment brings them

greater happiness than the quest.

--Arthur C. Clarke

This literature review is made up of searches of databases such as Pro-

Quest and library holdings of major educational institutions, such as the National

Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, National University of

Singapore and Lakehead University of Canada.

The major sections of this review have been organised as: (a) outdoor

education; (b) adventure-based programmes; (c) life effectiveness; (d) summary.

Outdoor Education

The broad field known as outdoor education encompasses everything from

scaling a peak, to taking school children for a field trip, to bird-watching at the

garden. It is a somewhat vague and nebulous term. Outdoor Education has been

described as a place, a subject and a reason for learning. It has been called a

method, a process and a topic of learning. However, these definitions failed to

address the facts that outdoor education may take place indoors and/or may be

concerned with more than ecology. Hammerman and Hammerman (1964)

believed that the ultimate in outdoor education is the residential experience in

which a teacher and his/her pupils pack up and leave the school to live in an
 16

outdoor setting while carrying out a programme of learning activities related to

the school curriculum.

There are many definitions of outdoor education. One of the more

comprehensive definitions suggested by Ford (1989) is, “Outdoor education is

education in, about, and for the out of doors.” This definition tries to include the

place in which learning takes place, the topic to be taught, and the purpose of the

activity. Another popular definition is: “Outdoor education is an experiential

method of learning with the use of all senses. It takes place primarily, but not

exclusively, through involvement with the natural environment. In outdoor

education the emphasis for a subject of learning is placed on relationships

concerning people and natural resources (Priest & Gass, 1997)”. The National

Association for Outdoor Education in United Kingdom defines outdoor education

as “a means of approaching educational objectives through guided direct

experience in the environment using its resources as learning materials”.

The most commonly used theories in outdoor education are those derived

from experiential theory. In many ways, outdoor education, may be viewed as

experiential, especially when learning takes place through experiences (Ford,

1989). It is sometimes loosely defined as “learning by doing combined with

reflection.” Experiential education is an educational philosophy first developed in

the late nineteenth century and has since been articulated in a variety of fields

including cooperative education, internships, outdoor education organisational

development and training, and service learning. Most experiential learning

programmes are founded on the belief that learning or behaviour change must

focus on processes of growth (Gass, 1993).

 17

In essence, outdoor education is not a subject, but an integrated approach

to learning, to decision-making and the solutions to problems (Loynes, 1990). In

more recent times, it was proposed that current meanings of outdoor education are

social constructions, specific to time, place and ideologies of the proponents

(Boyes, 2000). For the purpose of this study, an appropriate definition is:

“Outdoor education is an experiential method of learning with the use of all

senses. It takes place primarily, but not exclusively, through involvement with the

natural environment. In outdoor education, the emphasis for a subject of learning

is placed on relationships concerning people and natural resources (Priest and

Gass, 1997).”

Adventure-Based Programmes

Another aspect of outdoor education that has shown steady growth from

the 1970s through the 1980s and into the 1990s is adventure education. Priest and

Gass (1997) defined adventure education as being concerned with two

relationships, the interpersonal (relationship with others) and the intra-personal

(self-concept). The “premise of adventure education” is that change takes place in

individuals and groups due to their participation in challenging problem-solving

tasks.

Adventure education has a long and varied history and its origins can be

traced to the organised camping, environmental, and experiential education

movements (Attarian, 2001). The American Camping Association has also

reported an increase in the number of camps offering adventure activities,

including ropes and challenge courses, climbing, backpacking, mountain biking

and caving. Darst and Armstrong (1980) cited three major reasons that seem
 18

consistently evident for such a growth in the pursuits of outdoor adventure

programmes: personal, economic and social psychological. More recently, Moote

and Wodarski (1997) cited active participation regardless of level of skills, and

experience of success in challenging activities as key reasons for the rising

popularity of adventure activities among schools.

Virtually any subject can be taught in an experiential manner, however, the

experiential teaching method is almost always used with adventure-based

education programmes. The process of adventure-based programmes uses

adventurous activities. Activities such as the ropes course and group initiatives

carried out in the outdoors or artificial adventure environments are often

challenging and involve creative problem-solving.

Outcomes of programme

According to Priest & Gass (1997), the product of adventure-based

programme is personal growth and development. This notion is supported by the

other authors of extensive research, who found positive changes in (a) social and

psychological changes (Bobilya & Akey, 2002; Eagle, 1999; Garst, Scheider, &

Baker, 2001; Kimball, 1986); (b) group cohesion (Darst & Armstrong, 1980;

Glass, & Benshoff, 2002; Socha, Potter & Downey, 2003); (c) self-esteem

(Halliday, 1999; Hutchinson, Henderson, & Francis, 2001; McCalden, 2002; Tan,

2002); and (d) life-skills (Moote, & Wodarski, 1997; Moote, Smyth & Wodarski,

1999). Hattie et al. (1997) identified forty major outcomes in the adventure

literature, which can be placed into six encompassing categories: leadership, self-

concept, academic, personality interpersonal, and adventuresomeness.

 19

Stenger (2001) suggested that there are certain values inherent in outdoor

activities, which include physical values, mental values, and emotional values.

Thus, it appears that the benefits derived from participation in adventure activities

are psychological, sociological, educational and physical, as classified by Ewert

(1989b). Overall, the results of most studies suggest that adventure programmes

can obtain notable outcomes and have particularly strong, lasting effects.

Camping, like any other recreational or educational endeavour, is not

inherently good (Henderson, 2001). Some researchers who have measured the

impacts of outdoor adventure programmes found conflicting results (Garst et al.,

2001) and cautioned that adventure-based programmes may not be inherently

good. There is a great deal of variability in outcome between different studies,

different programmes and different individuals, as pointed out by Hattie et al.

(1997). There are several possible factors such as programme length, age of

participant and so on that could influence the effects of outdoor education

programmes (Neill, 1999). In the same vein, researchers Gillet, Thomas, Skok,

and McLaughlin (1991) cited optimum length, intensity of the camp and the

identification of specific activities to be included as critical factors of such

experiences.

Hattie et al. (1997) found that the outcomes were most influenced by: (i)

the organisation running the programme, (ii) the programme length, and (iii) the

age of participants. Cason and Gillis (1994) found that the quality of the study too

had an impact on the outcomes, with lower quality studies reporting higher Effect

Sizes (ES). This should caution researchers to be more selective in their choice of

instrumentation and design and is compounded by the fact that very few studies
 20

use high quality assessment tools. According to Neill and Richards (1998), only

7% of outdoor educators reported that their programmes utilised standard tests as

part of their evaluation strategy.

Length of programme

The Cason and Gillis (1994) study also found a weak but positive

relationship between programme length and the size of the outcome. Their meta-

analysis comprised adventure programmes for students ranging from eleven-year

olds to college freshman. They included 147 effects based on 43 studies from

throughout the world and the average effect size was .31. The effects of most

outcomes such as self-concept, locus of control and grades were high. The only

programme effect that moderated their conclusion was length of the programme.

The longer programmes had higher effects (.58) then medium (.19) and short (.17)

programmes.

Garst et al. (2001) found a similar trend that adventure-based programmes

of three days or more in duration provide participants with sufficient time to

“escape” their home environment, allowing them to leave behind their daily

worries, problems, expectations and roles in order to be emotionally, mentally and

physically “open” to the experiences. As the mean age of the participants were

29.17 years, it was implied that participant age could be a confounding influence

in self-concept changes. This finding reiterated the importance of the novelty

experience for change to take place.

Hattie et al. (1997) also found that the effect sizes from 96 studies that

examined self-concept, locus of control and leadership, varied substantially

according to the particular programme and it was observed that the outcome
 21

improved as the length of the programme and ages of participants increased.

Nevertheless, Eagle, Gordon, and Lewis (2002) reported positive results with

regard to a one-day adventure programme for subjects ranging from 10-18 years

of age. The LEQ-H scores, measured thirty days after the programme showed a

significant difference. Notably, scores were also significantly higher for the Time-

Management, Task Leadership, and Emotional-Control sub-scales. Their finding

was consistent with longer interventions by Hattie et al. (1997) and Cason and

Gillis (1994); and they found that the one-day adventure intervention has an

impact on students’ development.

Age of participants

Hattie et al. (1997) found that there was too little information in their

meta-analysis to be specific about the age of the participants. Some studies

provided a range, others a mean and many a brief description (eg. University

students). The effects of the adventure programmes were found to be greater for

adults (.38) than students (.21). Neill (1999) found the dip in programme

effectiveness for fifteen year-olds rather dramatic. Around that age, adolescents

appear to be particularly reluctant to make high ratings about themselves. It was

explained that for many younger people, participation is likely to be decided by

their schools or parents, whereas for most adults, participation is voluntarily.

Hence, older participants who attended the programmes voluntarily, are likely to

be more motivated. Most studies, unfortunately, do not report the motivations for

participation. It could also be that during mid-adolescence, it is difficult to achieve

the typical sorts of changes we expect from outdoor education programmes (Neill,

1999).
 22

On the contrary, Cason and Gillis (1994) found a significant correlation for

the age of the participants, such that younger participants experienced a greater

amount of change due to the programme. This is an encouraging finding which

supports the use of adventure-based programmes for adolescents. However, the

average age in Cason and Gillis’ study was 15.8 years old and it may not be

extended to participants of younger ages, such as 12 to 13 year-olds. Another

limitation of their meta-analysis was that it came mainly from unpublished

dissertations and the researchers pointed the lack of publications as one of the

large problems in the field. For instance, Eagle et al. (2002) reported positive

Effect Sizes with regard to a one-day adventure programme for subjects ranging

from 10-18 years of age. However, there was no mention of how the difference in

age may have an impact on the LEQ-H scores and sub-scores.

Processing

Processing can be defined as the “sorting and ordering of information” that

enables participants to internalise meaning from an experience and this

contributes to programme outcomes (McKenzie, 2000; Priest, 2001).

Unfortunately, in the field of adventure education, there is no standardized

training for processing or facilitation skills.

Gubitz and Kutcher (1999) reiterated that the integral part of adventure-

based education is the debriefing, processing, or reflection phase that follows each

significant event. Eagle et al. (2002) also concluded that students found the ropes

course the most memorable, and liked the high elements most of all from the

qualitative measurements. Interestingly, he found that students too considered

processing the experience (debriefing) the second most memorable outcome from
 23

their experiences. Within this awareness it might be critical to examine the

facilitator skills necessary to process the experience, along with whether general

debriefing styles or specific styles are more effective.

Other key considerations may include activities, sequencing, and

instructors that may impact on the effectiveness of programmes. Even if most of

us are convinced of the benefits of processing to yield optimal programme

outcomes, we are not certain that “time for self-reflection” has been factored into

the programmes. Critical factors such as duration and goals of the programmes,

the sensitivity of the instruments used to measure outcome, the competence and

experience of instructors and the presence or absence of debriefing were usually

left out.

Life Effectiveness

Currently, there is very limited literature and research that addresses life-

effectiveness. The author of the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) suggests

that life effectiveness be viewed as personal effectiveness (Neill, 1999; Neill,

1999a; Neill, 2000). In other words, life effectiveness is essentially how an

individual acts, responds and thinks in a variety of situations. It has been proposed

that the greater one’s personal effectiveness, the more likely that person is to

achieve success in life (Hattie et al., 1997; Neill, 1999; Neill, 1999a; Neill, 2000).

Over the last sixty years, experiential and outdoor education practitioners

have touted the benefits of challenging outdoor activities on participants’ personal

development. Many of the claims were based on personal experience, anecdotal

success, and a belief that such experiences are inherently beneficial (Stenger,

2001). Beginning in the 1960s until the 1980s, researchers began evaluating
 24

adventure-based programmes more rigorously by using psychometrically

developed instruments such as the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale by Fitts (1965);

the Self-Perception Profile by Harter (1985); and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory by Coopersmith (1984) to measure changes in psychological

phenomena as pointed out by Richards, Ellis, & Neill (2002). Most of the

published research on adventure programme outcomes has used instruments that

were designed for assessment rather than for measuring developmental changes.

Furthermore, these instruments measure specific areas of personal development

(Stenger, 2001).

In the 1990s, a group of outdoor educators in Australia began designing a

psychometrically valid instrument that would measure developmental changes in

participants’ perceptions of their overall life-effectiveness (Stenger, 2001). Some

of the criteria used to guide the instrument’s development included: a) be easily

administered in the field; b) be relevant to programmes aims, especially those

facilitating personal development in a variety of life skills; c) be sensitive to

detect change; and d) specifically measure a range of life skills that are beneficial

to successful living and working (Neill et al., 2003). After many trials in the early

1990s, a database of over 1000 students on the 8-factor Life Effectiveness

Questionnaire (LEQ-H) was developed. Confirmatory factor analysis, a rigorous

statistical procedure for testing the fit between a theoretical structure and actual

data, was applied (Neill, 2000). The LEQ-H was very impressive - with a fit of .95

(Neill at el., 2003).

Dimensions of Life Effectiveness

Time Management
 25

Increasingly in Western society, an individual’s ability to plan and make

efficient use of time is seen as a useful quality in both personal and professional

life (Neill et al., 2003). One of the most common themes in any journal, magazine

or book on successful living is time management (Stenger, 2001). Concomitantly,

time management training is popular and widely available, however, the

evaluation of time-management training programmes has been limited (Macan,

1996), especially as it relates to people in everyday life (Neill et al., 2003). Macan

(1996) observed that the effects of time-management training on other outcomes,

such as control over time, job satisfaction, stress reactions, and job performance,

have not received much attention either. In this study, he found that the time-

management training on 44 employees did not show any effect on time

behaviours, attitudes and job performance.

Social Competence

The attainment of objectives related to pupils’ social development was

frequently placed high in the list of aims of such programmes (Dept of Education

and Science, UK, 1983). According to Neill et al. (2003), the Social Competence

dimension seeks to encompass the ability of an individual to function effectively

in social situations, including skills in communication, decision-making, and

problem-solving, crucial skills for adolescent development. In the literature, it is

also referred to as Interpersonal Competence and Social Skills.

Adventure-based programmes have become increasingly a popular

approach to working with adolescents on life skills issues (Moote & Wodarski,

1997; Moote, Smyth, & Wodarski, 1999) and they present social opportunities that

promote cohesiveness among people and groups (Darst & Armstrong, 1980). A
 26

study by Glass and Benshoff (2002) found that participation in a low-element

challenge course programme increased the perception of group cohesion among

normal adolescents between ages of 11 and 14. However, a study by Terry (2002),

using the LEQ found no change in the levels of social competence for 27 female

adolescents, as measured before the adventure course and directly after the course.

Moote et al. (1999) cited social competence as one of the requisite skills

needed for children to improve their ability to form and maintain healthy

relationships with significant adults such as parents, teachers and extended family

members. In the informal setting of an adventure programme, unrestricted by the

formalities of the school environment, pupils frequently view their teachers, for

the first time, as a “honest-to-goodness” human being, living with them

(Hammerman & Hammerman, 1964). There is, however a lack of studies on

Asians and local school children and this represents a knowledge gap in the local

context. In LEQ-H, the Social Competence items are applicable to a wide range of

settings and data from a diverse range of participants (eg. school children through

to corporate executives) were sought (Neill et al., 2003).

Achievement Motivation

The research literature has established a strong link between achievement

and motivation (Arkes, 1982). Basically, a person with more motivation to

achieve is more likely to reach a particular achievement (Weiner, 1980).

Consequently, intervention efforts have been able to improve achievement levels

by enhancing the motivation to achieve (Nicholls, 1984). More cognitive and

direct measures such as sentence completion tests have been developed. However,

McClellend (1985) criticises these approaches for being overly cognitive and
 27

failing to take into account the physiological processes underlying motivation.

Despite McClleland’s reservations, Neill et al. (2003) developed a cognitive-based

self-report format for the LEQ-H scale for practical reasons.

Intellectual Flexibility

Intellectual Flexibility refers to the ability of a person to appropriately

adjust his/her view to accommodate and act on the ideas of others (Neill et al.,

2003). Besides the LEQ, intellectual flexibility scales have appeared in other

instruments such as Personality Research Form eg. Cognitive Structure by

Jackson (1984).

To date, no research has been conducted to examine how the use of

metaphors in processing adventure education activities relates specifically to

intellectual flexibility (Stenger, 2001). However, the relationship between imagery

and metaphor may suggest that this part of adventure-based education, combined

with a lack of routine, and high problem-solving and role taking is what leads to

the changes in intellectual flexibility after an outdoor education experience (Neill

et al., 2003).

According to Gubitz and Kutcher (1999), attaining positive outcomes as a

result of experiential adventure-based activities is not simply a matter of taking a

group of adolescents through a variety of challenging activities. The importance

of debriefing, the use of metaphors, and transferring the lessons learned while on

an adventure course has been emphasized in the literature (Beard & Wilson, 2002;

Gubitz & Kutcher, 1999; Kolb, 1984; Priest, 2001; Terry, 2002). This phase

provides time for participants to express thoughts, comments or questions. During

reflection, questions are incorporated that encourage participants to examine the

 28

experience, search for personal meaning, and develop an abstract meaning that

can be metaphorically transferred into real life experiences.

Task Leadership

One of the most important leadership functions is task orientation, which

is defined as the ability to get others involved in the activity and motivated to

achieve the desired outcome (Neill et al., 2003). The majority of the research

literature focuses on the characteristics of people performing designated roles,

such as managers in organisations or in situational factors, leading to the

emergence of leaders in experiments. In contrast, the LEQ Task Leadership scale

gets individuals to assess their ability to take on and perform in a leadership role

when there is a situational need (Neill et al., 2003).

The authors of LEQ feel that an individual who is able to take control of

situations, motivate and enthuse others towards common goals, and ensure a

productive and harmonious outcome, is more likely to be effective in general life

than a person unable to perform such functions.

Emotional Control

Goleman’s (1995) theory of emotional intelligence gains attention as

people began to look to other measures of success besides intelligence quotient.

Emotional intelligence includes knowing oneself, understanding the relationship

between emotions and rational thoughts, empathizing with others, and managing

emotions and coping. It is also suggested that emotional intelligence is a skill and

therefore, can be taught to people. Measures of emotional competence are

included in personality instruments eg. High School Personality Questionnaire

(Catell, 1968) and clinical instruments eg. Beck Depression Inventory (Beck,
 29

Steer & Garbin, 1988). According to Goleman (1995), an important part of

emotional intelligence is self-awareness, which includes both the awareness of

thought processes and the awareness of emotions. As group processing plays an

important role in any adventure-based programmes (Gass, 1993; Terry, 2002), the

students have time to sort out thought processes and emotions that went along

with the activity. Through such programmes, students learn skills that lead to

awareness of both thoughts and emotions.

Empathy for others, such as understanding diverse perspectives and

respecting differences, is another major concept in emotional intelligence

(Goleman, 1995). One of the goals of outdoor educators is to try to help students

understand and respect individual differences (Hammerman & Hammerman,

1964). In the outdoors, students learn to cope with a variety of situations through a

variety of methods (Neill & Heubeck, 1998) and learning coping skills is one way

to manage situations. The focus of the LEQ Emotional Control scale was for

participants to assess their ability to deal with emotions under difficult or

demanding situations, based in the outdoors (Neill et al., 2003).

Active Initiative

Active initiative is intended to capture the dynamic ability that is

demonstrated by an individual who actively and independently initiates new

actions and thoughts in a variety of personal and work settings (Neill et al., 2003).

According to the authors of LEQ, there is currently little research literature

available to test the idea that Active Initiative can be considered a component of

life effectiveness.
 30

Although the concept has not been embraced or substantiated by

psychology research, it does have qualities (eg. entrepreneurship, innovation,

enterprising) that appear to be important in business, management and sport

(Stenger, 2001). Indeed, Garst and Scheider (2001) concurred that novelty is an

important aspect of the outdoor adventure experience and it helps participants

perceive their work in a different manner and to think “out of the box”.

Self-Confidence

Several constructs have been used to describe the affective component of

self, including self-esteem, self-concept, and self-perception (Garst & Scheider,

2001). When choosing which construct to use, the authors of LEQ-H decided to

select Self-Confidence. It is a term used in everyday language to refer to an

individual’s general belief in his/her abilities (Neill et al., 2003). The research

literature tends not to use the general term Self-Confidence, instead focussing

more specifically on self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-concept and so on (Neill et al.,

2003). Thus, Self-Confidence is closely related to the terms self-awareness, self-

esteem, and self-efficacy, which falls under the “big umbrella” of self-concept

(Stenger, 2001).

Sibthorp (2003) posits that Bandura’s modes of self-efficacy development

mesh well with the critical components of the adventure education process.

However, it is not clear which of these areas most closely represents the popular

notion of Self-Confidence (Neill et al., 2003). For the purpose of LEQ, the authors

hypothesize that there is an identifiable general personal confidence component of

life effectiveness and the scale was intended to provide a self-assessed measure of

one’s general confidence of success in work and personal situations.

 31

Research using the LEQ

The LEQ-H offers a simple and effective tool for assessing the effects of

experiential intervention programmes. Current limitations of the LEQ-H include

the need to develop concurrent validity evidence, especially corroboration with

other methods of observation and data collection. However, the strong

psychometrics, brevity, relevance to programmes aims, sensitivity to change,

assessment of competence, and educational value promise a new maturity in

empirical adventure education research (Neill, 2000).

Since the development of the LEQ (versions A-I), over 5,000 participant

responses have been entered into the LEQ database. This database is the largest of

its kind in adventure education (Neill, 2000). Approximately eighteen percent

(18%) of the participants were school-age students under the age of seventeen and

only ten percent (10%) of the programmes were school-based (Neill, 2000). See

Table 1 for more details about the LEQ database.

Table 1

LEQ Database Participant and Programme Profile

Programme No. of subjects (N) Programme Participant

Type Length Demographics
Outward Bound 542 2 – 10 days Age 12 – 16 years
(OB) School
Non-OB 581 Varies Adults
Management OB 451 5 –10 days Adults
Adventure OB 131 9 days Age 12 – 16 years
Adult OB 336 9 days Age 30+ years
Family OB 108 10 days 2 + family
members
Challenge OB 1176 21 – 26 days Age 17 – 29 years

Adapted from Neill (2000).

 32

It was found that the positive changes in LEQ are much smaller for school

programmes, when comparing the school-based programmes data to other types

of adventure-based programmes (Neill, 1999). Some possible reasons cited for the

smaller change include: participant age, programme length, and adolescent

developmental influences. It was also found that the eleven and twelve year-old

students demonstrate less change in LEQ scores than any other age groups except

the fifteen year olds (Stenger, 2001). A possible explanation offered by Hattie et

al. (1997) was “for many younger people, participation is likely to be decided by

their school or parents, whereas for most adults, participation is voluntarily.

Hence, older participants are more likely to be more motivated.”

Published studies using the LEQ (any version) have shown positive

changes in participants’ life effectiveness scores (eg. Eagle et al., 2002; Neill &

Flory, 2000 a; Neill, 1999; Neill, 2000; Neill et al., 2003; Stenger, 2001; Terry,

2002). The one dimension of the LEQ that has repeatedly shown the most change

is that of Time Management (Doherty, 2003; Eagle, 1999; Neill, 1999; Neill et al.,

2003; Stenger, 2001; Terry, 2002). This is probably so because most outdoor

adventure-based programmes emphasize the time management aspects through

the tight schedules of the various activities. The strong outcome for Time

Management should prompt some different thinking on what other previously

uninvestigated effects (besides outcomes such as self-esteem and self-concept) of

outdoor programmes are yet to be uncovered (Neill, 1999). See Table 2 for more

details.
 33

Table 2

LEQ Database Dimension Effect Size

Dimension Effect Size (ES)

Time Management .55
Social Competence .47
Achievement Motivation .28
Intellectual Flexibility .32
Task Leadership .48
Emotional Control .43
Active Initiative .35
Self-Confidence .46

Adapted from Neill (1999).

Neill et al. (2003) completed psychometric testing to ascertain reliability

and validity information on the LEQ-H. Since the intended use of the LEQ was to

compare educational programmes outcomes, consistency across gender and age

were desired. Three types of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were

completed: congeneric analysis (items by sub-scale), multi-factorial CFAs (similar

to exploratory factor analysis but with greater power to assist in instrument

development), and multi-factorial CFAs to test for structural invariance between

groups (comparison between groups, eg. gender). The researchers used the

following outcome statistics: factor loadings, co-efficient omega, and two fit

indices, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and relative noncentrality index (RNI) (Neill et

al., 2003).

The results of that study showed all but three individual items had factor

loadings of at least .70, which means that at least half of the variance can be

accounted for the latent factor. All of the sub-scales had co-efficient omegas above

.80 (reliability is at desired levels) and five of the sub-scales have fit indices over

the desired .90 (data fits the model). The low scores on the fit indices for Task
 34

Leadership (.672), Time Management (.870), and Intellectual Flexibility (.888),

were explained by the estimation of uniqueness because they all had high factor

loadings (Neill et al., 2003). Refer to Table 3.

Table 3

LEQ Factor Loadings (FL), Uniqueness, Co-efficient Omega (), Goodness of fit
Indices (TLI & RNI), and Sample Size (N).
 35

Scale & Items FL Uniqueness  X2 df TLI/RNI N

Time .868 118.20 3 .870 923
Management
TM01 .736 .396
TM17 .748 .320
TM25 .860 .214
Social .896 82.15 3 .929 918
Competence
SO02 .875 .196
SO10 .865 .202
SO18 .680 .456
Achievement .870 69.12 3 .922 923
Motivation
AM03 .648 .519
AM11 .887 .185
AM19 .755 .350
Intellectual .825 76.78 3 .888 919
Flexibility
IF20 .561 .507
IF28 .813 .299
IF36 .791 .333
Task Leadership .873 268.48 3 .672 914
TL15 .630 .347
TL31 .862 .204
TL39 .798 .310
Emotional .883 33.06 3 .977 924
Control
EC08 .853 .244
EC16 .777 .333
EC40 .850 .263
Active Initiative .890 40.16 3 .971 922
AI44 .753 .356
AI50 .830 .298
AI59 .889 .188
Self Confidence .861 38.14 3 .965 925
SC45 .783 .336
SC48 .752 .371
SC54 .847 .254
Adapted from Neill, Marsh, & Richards (2003).

Summary
 36

Outdoor education in the form of camping has been popular in Singapore

since the early 1980s. However, there is a lack of research in this area. In my

literature search, I managed to locate, with some difficulty, some local

undergraduate research on the provision of outdoor education by Ho (1994), Chan

(1998) and Tay (1999). There was another study by Lee (1996) that examined the

attitudes of educators towards outdoor education in Singapore. In terms of specific

research materials on how outdoor education in Singapore has influenced

students’ perceptions, only two local studies by Siow (2000) and Tan (2002) were

located. Even then, they were not found to be particularly relevant to this study.

Therefore, the author of this study has to make references and comparisons

to similar studies done in other parts of the world, namely Australia and the

United States of America. In addition, most of the research literature found on life

effectiveness reported results from meta-analyses. The methodologies of the

individual studies were therefore not given in much detail, and this compounded

the difficulty of replication and comparison. In cognizance of the constraints

highlighted, the author therefore focused on a review of research literature that

comprehensively covered aspects of outdoor education and on the studies that

made use of the different versions of the life effectiveness instrument that was

used in the study.

CHAPTER THREE
 37

METHODOLOGY

I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once.

I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work.

When I have eliminated the ways that will not work,

I will find the way that will work.

--Thomas Edison

Three-day residential adventure-based camping programmes have long

been established as an integral part of the primary schools’ co-curricular

programmes in Singapore. In a survey conducted by ECAC in 1991, it was found

that 98% of all the primary schools conducted such camping programmes.

Typically, during the three-day programme, students undergo several

adventure experiences, such as team-building stations, low challenge course, high

challenge ropes courses, rock-climbing and abseiling. The evening programmes

included activities such as night walk, folk-dancing, sing-a-long and campfires.

An outline of a typical three-day adventure-based programme for primary five

pupils is included in Appendix A. Incidentally, all the programmes in this study

were conducted in those MOE Adventure Centres that do not have access to the

sea, thus, water-bound activities were excluded in the programmes of this study.

Outdoor and adventure-based programmes were mostly designed to

enhance the students’ self-awareness, self-confidence and teamwork through the

high ropes course and team-building activities. The residential component was to

facilitate other objectives of the programme such as communication amongst

students, as well as provide opportunities for them to develop leadership and

 38

problem-solving skills. Three-day residential adventure-based camping

programmes, organised by the schools, were utilized as the treatment in this study.

The schools ran their respective adventure-based programmes and the researcher

took no part in the planning and delivery of these programmes. See Appendix A

for a typical 3-day camp programme for primary school pupils.

Sample of School Camping Participants

The participants of this study were 345 primary five students from four

primary schools. The participants did not have similar experiences prior to the

adventure-based camping programmes in this study. 189 (M=75, F=114) students

with an average age of 10.6 yrs, from three schools participated in a three-day

adventure-based school camping programme, organised by their respective

schools. 156 (M=89, F=67) students with an average age of 10.7 yrs from one

school participated as the control group. These students were selected to

participate as the control group as the school’s adventure-based camping

programme was cancelled due to the Severe Acute Respiratory System (SARS)

situation in Singapore during that period of time.

Official requests were submitted to all the four primary schools, informing

them of the purpose and procedures of this study. Consent of participation in the

programmes was also sought from the parents of the participants.

Instrumentation

The LEQ-H is a 24 –item, multidimensional, self-report measure, designed

to measure changes in life effectiveness through experience-based interventions,

such as an adventure programme. The LEQ-H is a questionnaire with an 8-point

Likert-type scale response. Participants answered each item by deciding where the
 39

statement fell along a continuum of false / completely unlike them (a score of

one), to true / definitely like them (a score of eight). Refer to Table 4.

Table 4

8-point Likert-type scale response

STATEMENT FALSE TRUE

not like me like me

01. I plan and use my time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

efficiently

Therefore, an individual’s overall score could be no less than 24 and no

greater than 192. The LEQ-H included eight life effectiveness dimensions:

achievement motivation, active initiative, emotional control, intellectual

flexibility, self-confidence, social competence, task leadership, and time

management. The eight dimensions are represented by three questions each.

Procedure

A pilot study was carried out to establish the suitability of the LEQ-H

questionnaire for an average primary five Singaporean student. The study was

carried out on a class of primary five students from an average neighbourhood

school. The pilot study required them to complete the LEQ-H and to clarify

whenever they had difficulties comprehending the questions. The pilot study

revealed no difficulties for the children in comprehending the LEQ-H and

confirmed its suitability for local children.

In this study, the LEQ-H was administered twice for the experimental

group of students: pre-test and post-test. The pre-test was administered on the day
 40

of arrival, when the participants had assembled at the MOE adventure centre,

prior to the commencement of each school’s adventure-based programme. As for

the post-test, it was administered just before the departure of the participants from

the MOE adventure centre on the final day of each programme.

Similarly, the LEQ-H was administered twice to the control group of

student. However, the tests were conducted at the school in their respective

classrooms. The teachers of the respective classes were briefed and given the

administration instructions of the LEQ-H questionnaire prior to the conduct of the

tests. The pre-test was administered on Friday, just prior to the weekend break and

the post-test was administered on the following Monday when the participants

return to school. The period of time between the pre and post tests of the control

group was kept as similar to that of the experiment group of students as possible.

Table 5

Research Design

GROUP PRE-TEST TREATMENT POST-TEST

Experimental LEQ-H administered Typical 3-day LEQ-H administered
on day of arrival at residential at the conclusion of
N = 189
adventure centre, adventure-based the programme, just
(F= 114, M=75) before programme camping prior to departure
Av age = 10.6 yrs began. programme. from adventure
centre.

Control LEQ-H administered No treatment LEQ-H administered

at school on Friday, (ie. 3-day at school on the
N = 156
just prior to the interval) following Monday,
(F= 67, M=89) weekend break. just after the
Av age = 10.7 yrs weekend.

Research Questions
 41

The data from 345 subjects was collected using the LEQ-H, which was

developed to look at impacts of experiential personal development programmes

on life effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate:

 The impact of a three-day adventure-based programme on primary five

pupils’ perceptions of life effectiveness as measured by LEQ-H; and

 The amount of change in the eight dimensions of life effectiveness.

Assumptions made

The research design of this study was based on the following assumptions:

1. Students perceived their life effectiveness in the eight dimensions of the LEQ-

H, as outlined in this study; and

2. Participants had not participated in any similar camping experience prior to

the adventure-based camps conducted for primary five students.

Limitations of the study

1. Internal validity could be affected by the following factors:

a. LEQ-H, designed based largely on an Australian sample, was administered

to a Singaporean sample;

b. Testing and retesting subjects within a span of three days may result in an

improvement in the LEQ-H scores due to practice;

c. Difference among instructors’ styles of facilitation would affect course

experiences;

d. Non-standardisation of the camping programmes would affect course

experiences;
 42

e. External factors (eg. weather, socialising experiences, ethnic differences,

family background, socio-economical status) may have had an effect

on some participants while not affecting others; and

f. The school camping experiences in this study were designed to meet

certain schools’ objectives other than those specific to life-

effectiveness as measured by the LEQ-H.

2. External validity could be affected by:

a. The lack of random sampling of subjects; and

b. The small sample size.

 43

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Your belief determines your action and your action determines your results,

but first you have to believe.

--Mark Victor Hansen

So far, this is probably the first time the LEQ was employed in a local

research study. The author, therefore, felt that it was necessary to administer a

reliability test for the 8-factor, 24-item LEQ-H for all the subjects, using the data

gathered from both the experimental and control groups. Comparisons of the

reliability coefficient of the 8 factors of this study were made with those reported

in the study done by Neill et al. (2003).

Table 6

Comparison of the Internal Consistencies for the 8-factor, 24-item model between

this study and the study by Neill, Marsh, & Richards (2003).

(3 items per scale)

LEQ-H Reliability coefficient
24-item 8-factor model This Study Study by Neill et al. (2003)
Achievement Motivation .70 .87
Active Initiative .63 .81
Emotional Control .72 .87
Intellectual Flexibility .68 .78
Self Confidence .66 .84
Social Competence .63 .86
Task Leadership .50 .82
Time Management .77 .84
N 345 2120
With the exception of the dimension Task Leadership with a low reliability

coefficient of .50, the internal consistencies of the other seven dimensions are

generally satisfactory in this study, particularly given that there are only three
 44

items per scale and the small sample size (N=345) used in this study. Moreover,

the reliability coefficients in this study are lower than desirable as they are likely

to be effected, to an unknown degree, by the intervention period (Neill et al.,

2003).

Analysis of results

Effect sizes (ES) refer to the relative magnitude of the differences between

means. In other words, it describes the 'amount of total variance in the dependent

variable that is predictable from knowledge of the levels of the independent

variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). In the study, an ES is a measure of how

much difference existed between ratings at two different points in time (eg. before

and after the 3-day programme). In essence, the ES gives an indication of the

quantified amount of change.

To draw parallel with other studies in LEQ, ESs were used to compare

students’ LEQ total and subscale scores pre and post programmes in this study. In

this study, the ESs were calculated based on the differences between the means of

the two variables divided by the pooled variance of the variables, outlined by

Thomas and Nelson (1996). The author checked with the originator of the LEQ,

James Neill, and confirmed that a similar method was employed for the

computation2 of ES.

For general interpretation, an ES of zero means no change, a negative ES

means a reduction for a measured outcome, and a positive ES means an increase

in a measured outcome. Although there are no set standards against which to

evaluate an ES, Cohen (1977) provided rough guidelines of ES =.2 (small effect),

2
ES = Mean 2 - Mean 1 / Pooled SD
 45

ES=.5 (medium effect), and ES=.8 (large effect) with the caveat that it is better to

obtain comparison standards from the professional literature than to use these

somewhat arbitrary guidelines (Cason & Gillis, 1994).

Table 7 shows the overall ES and ESs of the eight dimensions of the

experimental group.

Table 7

LEQ-H results for the Experimental group (N=189)

LEQ-H Scale Effect Size

Time Management 0.24
Social Competence 0.17
Achievement Motivation 0.09
Intellectual Flexibility 0.13
Task Leadership 0.21
Emotional Control 0.18
Active Initiative 0.23
Self Confidence 0.11
Overall LEQ-H 0.21

Comparison with other programmes

Neill (1999) found ESs for different non-Outward Bound (OB)

organisations ranged from .25 to .40. By far, the most impressive outcomes are for

the OB Challenge programmes (public enrolment 21 to 26 days programmes for

17 to 30 year olds) (ES = .58, n = 1589). As highlighted by Neill (1999), some of

the key features that might have contributed to the medium effect included:

 High intensity: the Challenge programme is more than recreational, it is

difficult and demanding for participants;

 Duration: 3 to 4 weeks in length;

 Motivation: participants are mostly well motivated;

 46

 Programme design: Based on psychological and education theory about

how personal change can be achieved through outdoor experience;

 Holistic emphasis: The programme emphasizes physical, social,

intellectual and emotional development; and

 Research and evaluation: Challenge programmes have had a long history

of careful evaluation and refinement based on results.

The ES of this study (.21) is found to be consistent with the size of

changes reported in the findings of previous meta-analytic studies reported an

average ES of .21 (228 effect sizes, Hattie et al., 1997) for outdoor education

programmes with school students. Neill (1999) also found that the smallest ESs

were reaped for school OBA programmes (.26). This finding is also in line with

findings for school-age participants experiencing smaller changes than adults in

the meta-analysis of Hattie et al. (1997). It was also reported that the average

effects from attending adventure programmes of .34 is not too dissimilar to the

effects of many innovations in classrooms. However, the effects of adventure

programmes on self-esteem (.26) exceed that of other educational programmes

(.19). The overall result is similar to the .31 reported by Cason and Gillis (1994)

in their meta-analysis based solely on adolescents.

For all programmes with school-aged students and for all shorter

programmes, the mean effect was .26 (Hattie et al., 1997). Neill (1999) suggested

some possible reasons for adolescents experiencing less change or growth in self-

perceptions. Here are several factors highlighted as worthy of consideration.

Firstly, we need to consider if participants’ attendance was compulsory. This may

confound the results, since in the current LEQ database, the adult-age participants
 47

tend to be voluntary participants whereas for school students, the programmes

were often compulsory. A second possible reason for the relatively small ESs is

that school-age programmes tend to be shorter in length than adult-age

programmes. Previous research has also shown a small positive relationship

between outdoor education programme length and outcomes (Cason & Gillis,

1994; Hattie et al., 1997). A third possible reason for the overall smaller effects on

school-age participants may be that there are developmental influences going on

which makes it difficult to enhance adolescent self perceptions.

Life Effectiveness Dimensions

So far, the discussion in this paper has focused on the overall outcomes,

averaging all eight LEQ scales. A major feature of LEQ was that it was designed

to tap into distinct areas of life effectiveness (Neill, 1999). Looking at the data of

the experimental group, the finding of this study was consistent with the findings

of similar studies by Eagle et al. (2002), Neill (1999), Neill and Flory (2000a) and

Doherty (2003), with the greatest gain in the dimension Time Management (ES = .

24). The ES of Task Leadership (.21) in this study was also comparable to other

studies in LEQ. As in other studies by Neill (1999) and Doherty (2003), little

effect or no change was observed in dimensions such as Achievement Motivation

and Intellectual Flexibility. However, the ESs found in Active Initiative and Social

Confidence in this study was not consistent with the findings of the other studies.

Hence, it remains unclear if the changes reported in the various dimensions were

indeed attributable to the three-day camping experience or was it merely because

specific populations were predisposed to being adaptable to certain attributes.

Use of a Control Group

 48

There has been an acute lack of data on control groups in adventure-based

research as random assignment to groups was almost impractical. Moreover,

outdoor adventure programme participants often represent a diverse group of

individuals and researchers are challenged to identify appropriate matching

control groups (Garst et al., 2001). Moote and Wodarski (1997), in examining the

research designs of the various studies, pointed out the lack of control groups in

research designs as an issue. So far, none of the LEQ research or studies has

reported using a control group. Thus, there was no basis for comparison for the

LEQ scores of the control group in this study.

Moreover, researchers may also inadvertently miss the influence of

outdoor adventure programmes by relying on quantitative methods to identify

outcomes by comparing across programmes and studies. According to Purdie and

Neill (1999), cultural variations in self-rating make it difficult to meaningfully

compare self-concept type scores of Western students with Asian students. It was

also stated that it is not entirely clear how these biases operate when the key

interest is in evaluating the impacts of intervention programmes.

Clearly, there was limited research on Asians and local school programmes

and this represented a knowledge gap in the local context. To date, ESs of LEQ

were largely reported on the Australian and US populations, and were mostly on

Outward Bound School programmes. There has not been any LEQ study done in

our local context. Neill and Flory (2000a) also highlighted that there may be

cultural factors between these adolescents and other cohort issues that would need

further investigation in order to confidently determine differences in effectiveness

 49

between the programmes. Hence, the use of a control group becomes even more

essential.

The positive effects of the experimental group found in this study seemed

to point to positive impact on primary five pupils’ life-effectiveness, measured by

LEQ-H, after 3 days of adventure-based programme conducted by their respective

schools. To further challenge this assumption, this study built into its design an

appropriate and matching control group of subjects for comparison.

Data Analysis

Statistical significance testing has time and again been challenged and one

of the key criticisms is its over-reliance on sample size. The larger the sample

size, the easier it is to reject the null hypothesis and the rejection of the null

hypothesis by itself is not informative in the practical sense (Fan, 2001). However,

statistical significance testing reporting is still essential in many situations so that

researchers are not misled by the ES measures (Fan, 2001). Hence, in addition to

the ES used in this study, statistical significance testing would provide a richer

insight into the amount of change experienced by the participants.

The completed questionnaires were sorted and the data were keyed into an

SPSS data file. The data were imported into an SPSS for Windows Version 11.5

file and analysed using descriptive statistics. The level of significance was set at .

05. The dependent variables were total scores on LEQ-H and subscale scores on

each of the eight dimensions; achievement motivation, active initiative, emotional

control, intellectual flexibility, self-confidence, social competence, task leadership

and time management. The scores on each of the eight LEQ-H dimensions and the
 50

total LEQ-H score acted as dependent variables to gauge the effects of the

independent variables (time and groups).

The pre-tests data was used to test for any pre-existing differences between

the experimental and control groups. Results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Homogeneity test between the Experimental and Control groups (N=345)

LEQ-H Scale Group N Pre-test Mean (SD)

Time Management Exp 189 5.21 (1.44)
Control 156 5.07 (1.43)
Social Competence Exp 189 5.08 (1.43)
Control 156 4.96 (1.48)
Achievement Motivation Exp 189 6.44 (1.38)
Control 156 6.50 (1.11)
Intellectual Flexibility Exp 189 5.76 (1.31)
Control 156 5.64 (1.24)
Task Leadership Exp 189 4.71 (1.49)
Control 156 4.63 (1.45)
Emotional Control Exp 189 5.01 (1.57)
Control 156 4.83 (1.59)
Active Initiative Exp 189 5.75 (1.63)
Control 156 6.04 (1.34)
Self-Confidence Exp 189 5.88 (1.52)
Control 156 6.07 (1.32)
Overall LEQ score Exp 189 5.48 (1.02)
Control 156 5.47 (0.89)
* p< .05

There was no significant difference between the pre-tests LEQ mean

scores between the experimental and control groups of pupils in the eight

dimensions of LEQ-H. Hence, there is no necessity to put in place control

measures to account for pre-existing differences between the control and

experimental groups in this study. Based on findings of this study, there is

statistical evidence that there is homogeneity between the two of participants, in

terms of LEQ-H scores.

 51

The author then proceeded to administer t-test to find out the differences

between the post-tests mean scores of the participants in the LEQ-H scales.

ANCOVA was not conducted because comparison of baseline scores showed that

the experimental and control did not differ significantly at baseline. Table 9

summarizes the findings of the t-tests of the mean scores of the post-tests of the

two groups of participants.

Table 9

Post–tests Mean scores of participants (N=345)

Post-test Mean (SD)

Exp Control
LEQ Scale t Sig.
Time Management 5.58 (1.48) 5.26 (1.44) 2.058 .040 *
Social Competence 5.34 (1.32) 5.21 (1.36) 0.882 .378
Achievement Motivation 6.58 (1.36) 6.44 (1.19) 0.946 .345
Intellectual Flexibility 5.98 (1.47) 5.78 (1.38) 1.301 .194
Task Leadership 4.99 (1.36) 4.83 (1.60) 0.975 .330
Emotional Control 5.29 (1.56) 5.04 (1.59) 1.444 .150
Active Initiative 6.13 (1.45) 6.14 (1.49) -0.053 .958
Self Confidence 6.07 (1.54) 6.36 (1.38) -1.208 .228
Overall 5.74 (1.06) 5.62 (0.96) 1.081 .280
* p<.05

Summary

It is not necessarily correct to conclude that the programmes are simply

less effective in some areas or to specific populations. Here are several possible

explanations that deserve further exploration, such as:

 52

 Participants may already perceive themselves quite highly in some areas

and thus they have less “room for growth” eg. Achievement Motivation,

Active Initiative and Self-Confidence;

 Certain dimensions of the life effectiveness like Self-Confidence and

Intellectual Flexibility and Emotional Control may be more stable and thus

need to be cultivated over longer periods of time;

 Cultural background of the population may predispose them to certain

areas of life effectiveness. For instance, the participants in this study

scored exceptionally high in the Achievement Motivation dimension even

at the onset (ie. pre-tests). Therefore, more local research in this area is

needed for meaningful comparison;

 There may be ‘frame of reference’ effects – in other words, the

experiences of the programmes may cause different ‘standards’ of

comparison to be adopted by participants in these areas;

 Some research claims that certain groups (eg. gender, age-groups) of the

population may be predisposed to certain areas of life effectiveness.

Hence, further research is needed to establish the facts.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Life does not consist mainly,

or even largely, of facts and happenings.

 53

It consists mainly of the storm of thought

that is forever flowing through one's head

--Mark Twain

In relationship to this study, several conclusions might be drawn. The first

is that participating in a three-day adventure-based camping programme may have

several personal growth benefits for primary five Singaporean students, however,

the results from the study is inconclusive. The ES for the experimental group of

students is .21, consistent with the size of changes reported by Neill (1999) in

meta-analytic reviews of outdoor education research.

Positive changes in the overall life effectiveness and in two areas of the

life effectiveness were found to be significant. In contrast, there was no significant

effect observed for the control group of students on the overall life effectiveness

and the eight areas of life effectiveness. The most impressive outcome is clearly

for Time Management (ES = .24) in this study, consistent with other studies by

Doherty (2003); Eagle et al. (2002); Neill (1997b); Neill (1999); Neill and Flory

(2000a); Stenger (2001); and Terry (2002).

Contrary to earlier reports of significant changes between the pre and post

LEQ scores in this study, it was found that there is little or no change in the LEQ-

H scores when comparisons of Effect Sizes were made between the experimental

and control groups of pupils. This finding provides an additional insight to the

literature of local research in LEQ and outdoor education. Moote and Wodarski

(1997), in examining the research designs of the various studies, pointed out the

lack of control groups in research designs as an issue.

 54

The unequal composition of male and female in the experimental and

control groups of students might have some impact on the results of this study.

Though gender may be a consideration for difference in outcomes (Neill, 1997a),

more research needs to be done to examine the impact on LEQ. Therefore, future

research designs should perhaps take into account the number of male and female

subjects in the groups (that is the experimental and the control groups).

Implications

The findings in this study have implications in the context of Singapore

schools where manpower, physical and financial resources are limited and

therefore, need to be prioritised.

Many of the studies (Eagle et al., 2002; Neill, 1999; Neil, 2000; Neill &

Flory, 2000a) have shown that participants’ overall Life Effectiveness increase

after the adventure-based programmes. Many outdoor practitioners claim that

students benefit in many areas, yet far too often only simple, global measures of

‘self-esteem’ or ‘self-confidence’ are investigated. Positive outcomes for

dimensions in life effectiveness, as Neill (1999) suggested, should prompt some

different thinking about what other previously effects are yet to be uncovered.

The second implication is the consideration of programme duration. As

demonstrated by the literature review and the results of this study, the duration of

the experience may not be sufficiently long enough to effect a change in the

pupils’ perception of their life effectiveness. Garst et al. (2001) postulated that

experiential outdoor adventure programmes that are three or more days in

duration provide participants with sufficient time to “escape” their home

environment, allowing them to leave behind their daily worries, problems,

 55

expectations and roles in order for them to be emotionally, mentally and

physically “open” to the outdoor adventure experiences. The results of this study

did not reveal any clear benefits of a three-day adventure-based programme could

be due to the short duration of the programme.

The third implication is the choice of target groups for such adventure-

based programmes. The effects of the adventure programmes were found to be

greater for adults than students in majority of the studies. If indeed there is a

positive correlation between the benefits of adventure programmes and the

maturation stage of individuals, MOE and schools should perhaps sharpen the

focus towards development of our students in the secondary schools and higher

learning institutes.

Lastly, the majority of the research studies in the literature review that

examined adventure-based programmes and LEQ were conducted with not more

than 40 participants in each programme. It is therefore, difficult to draw parallels

with the studies in the literature review as the programmes in this study catered to

large numbers of participants, up to about 300 students per programme.

Limitations

The researcher was also aware of the limitations of this study. After all, the

LEQ instrument was developed based largely on an Australian population and

may not be as relevant to a Singaporean population, taking into consideration

cultural, mindset and lifestyle differences. Furthermore the short period between

pre- and post-test may not have been adequate for changes that require more time

to develop. Indeed, certain areas of life effectiveness like Intellectual Flexibility

(ES = .13) and Self Confidence (ES = .11), which may be more stable and thus
 56

may take time to shift. As for Achievement Motivation (ES = .09), participants in

this study may already perceive themselves quite highly in some areas and thus

they have less “room for growth” (Neill, 1997b).

The use of LEQ, though developed to measure outcomes of outdoor

education programmes may not be entirely appropriate. The 3-day camping

programmes conducted for primary five pupils were planned to serve the

respective schools’ objectives and may not be targeted at the specific constructs of

the LEQ. Therefore, the present study cannot be generalized to other student

populations other than the sample population used in the study.

It is with the limitations of the present study in mind that the following

recommendations are made.

Recommendations

The author hopes that this study can provide an impetus for future research

studies in the area of outdoor education, especially so in the local context. While

answering some of the questions about Life Effectiveness and the effectiveness of

a typical adventure-based programme provided by schools, it has raised others

that should be addressed with future research. Here are some recommendations

that could be considered for future research.

1. One of the key considerations in future research designs is to use a bigger

sample size. For instance, Neill et al. (2003) used a sample size of at least

2000 while this study only employed a sample size of about 300 participants.

Another consideration discussed earlier is to ensure an equitable number of

males and females in the experimental and control groups so as to minimize

gender bias in the results.

 57

2. Ensure that the nature of the programme is well documented. Many potentially

important variables are not routinely detailed in the research that may be of

interest to other researchers. For instance, leadership styles, specific activities

utilized, the type of facilitation style employed, sequencing of activities, plus

any time spent processing experiences, were rarely taken into account. Often

the activities chosen and how they are processed are what practitioners want

most from research studies.

3. Further research should evaluate the effects of specific programme

components on Life Effectiveness. For instance, does team-building activity

produce greater LEQ scores than an adventure activity like challenge ropes

course? Or do different adventures (ie. kayaking or abseiling) produce

different results?

4. Future research should include additional follow up post-tests (eg. 2 months,

12 months after the programme) as the short time period of three days

between pre and post-tests in this study may not take into consideration the

possibility of changes that require more time to develop than that

encompassed by the study. For instance, Eagle et al. (2002) used LEQ-H a

month after the programme and found significant changes.

5. Further study is needed to assess the difference in Life Effectiveness scores

between multi-day resident outdoor education programmes, where the

participants spend the night at the outdoor education centre, and multi-day

outdoor education programmes where the participants go home each day.

6. Ascertain the effects of the adventure instructor and teachers. There were few

studies that investigated this effect. Given that much of the classroom-based
 58

research has demonstrated the powerful influences for the teacher, the effects

of adventure instructors and teachers is worthy of examining in future studies.

7. Interview and observation techniques to complement the quantitative analysis

should be considered in future research.

The researcher hopes that this study will provide some insights to local

research that seeks to examine adventure-based programmes as part of the school

curriculum. Hence, all available tools should be used in order to understand how

and what effects outdoor education programmes have on out students and how

best to tailor the learning experiences for them.

Conclusions

On average, outdoor education programmes appeared to have small to

moderate effects on participants’ self-perceptions of personal qualities and

capabilities. This finding is similar to the average outcome for psychological

training and other types of educational self-concept change programmes (Neill et

al., 2003). Contrary to popular and widely held beliefs of the inherent benefits of

the typical three-day adventure-based camping programme currently carried out

by the primary schools, the findings of this study challenge the effectiveness of

the programme towards enhancing the life effectiveness of our primary five

pupils.

While we should not discount the numerous intangible and non-

quantifiable benefits that were reaped from the experiences as suggested by a

hosts of researchers such as Crompton & Sellar (1981); Grayson (1997); Gubitz &

Kutcher (1999); Harris (2000); Hattie et al. (1997); and Neill (1994b), it is
 59

insufficient for outdoor education advocates or educators to simply believe in the

benefits of its programmes, or to accept anecdotal evidence at face value.

The results of this study failed to provide statistical evidence that the

typical three-day adventure-based programme that schools provide for their

primary five students are indeed effective in enhancing their life effectiveness.

Except for time management, the other constructs and the overall LEQ did not

show any significant change in scores before and after the three-day programmes.

Hence, we cannot be certain that the changes in LEQ scores in terms of Effect

Sizes are brought about by the three-day adventure programmes conducted by the

respective schools. The lack of change was further substantiated by comparing the

LEQ scores of the experimental and the control groups of subjects.

While it may not feasible for many of the studies in outdoor education to

employ a control group (Neill & Heubeck, 1998), this study managed to employ

the use of a matching group of control as part of the research design. The

inclusion of a control group made the design more robust as compared to majority

of the LEQ studies on outdoor education. The results in all the LEQ studies were

reported in Effect Sizes so that comparisons with the effects of other relevant

programmes could be done more efficiently. However, there were few studies that

did Effect Size comparisons with their control groups. The findings in this study,

therefore, challenge the assumption that outdoor education programmes, on

average, have small to moderate effects on participants’ self-perceptions of their

Life Effectiveness, as reported by most research on LEQ so far.

Assuming that there was indeed little or no change found in the perception

of these primary five pupils on Life Effectiveness after their three-day

 60

programmes, one of the key considerations for us to examine would be the

designs of the outdoor experiences crafted for our pupils. Currently, the majority

of our primary five pupils go through the typical camping programmes with a lack

of clear objectives. These programmes are usually conducted by the schools and

were not directly aimed at helping pupils achieve the competencies in the LEQ.

As such, the focus and emphasis of the programmes in this study may not be on

life effectiveness, and the pupils who went through the programmes may not be

familiar with life effectiveness. Hence, it would not be realistic for us to expect

any enhancement in LEQ scores after the typical three-day programmes.

In the long term, the MOE should explore the possibility of providing

broad frameworks to guide schools in their design and delivery of their outdoor

education programmes to meet specific outcomes. In addition, there should be

development of appropriate tools that could measure these outcomes. Other key

policy considerations include the length of the programmes and the targeted age

of the participants. Perhaps, an older group of participants would have benefited

more from the experience and able to learn much more than the primary fives. Or

is a three-day programme too short a duration to effect any change in the life

effectiveness of the participants? Will a programme of longer duration, say five

days, reap higher LEQ scores than a three-day programme? Many of these

questions remained unanswered. More research, especially local ones, is needed

to help policy makers to opt for optimal solutions and to weigh the consequences

of their decisions.

While this study cannot answer most of the questions posed, it hopes to

offer additional insights that would be useful in promoting sound evaluative

 61

research as one of the best routes to finding answers to key questions about the

processes that are most successful in outdoor education programmes. The more

outdoor education practitioners can learn from each other’s successes and

mistakes through programme evaluation and research, the more we can benefit

our students and ourselves in using these programmes. Indeed, the author saw a

need for more local research studies to in be conducted the areas of LEQ and

schools’ outdoor education programmes to develop concurrent valid evidence.

Furthermore, future studies should also consider using a variety of methods of

observation and data collection for a richer understanding of the research topics in

question.

REFERENCES

Attarian, A. (2001). Trends in outdoor adventure education. The Journal of

Experiential Education, 24 (3), 141-149.

 62

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the

Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical

Psychology Review, 8, 77-100.

Bobilya, A.J., & Akey, L.D. (2002). An evaluation of adventure education

components in a residential learning community. The Journal of

Experiential Education, 25 (2), 296 – 304.

Boyes, M. (2000). The place of outdoor education in the health and P.E.

curriculum. Journal of P.E. New Zealand, 33 (2), 75 – 84.

Beard, C., & Wilson, J.P. (2002). The power of experiential learning: A handbook

for trainers and educators. London: Kogan Page.

Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure

programming with adolescents. Journal of Experiential Education, 17(1),

40-47.

Cattell, R.B. (1968). Manual for the High School Personality Questionnaire.

Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.

CCAB. (2001). Review on the Provision of resources for outdoor education

programme for schools. Singapore, Ministry of Education.

CCAB. (2001). Review on the Provision of resources for outdoor education

programme for schools (2nd paper). Ministry of Education, Singapore.

Chan, W.L. (1998). Outdoor adventure provision in the four polytechnics in

Singapore. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation. Loughborough

University of Technology, England.

Chok Tong calls for return to a rugged society. (1990, March 11). The Sunday

Times.
 63

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences (revised ed.)

New York: Academic Press.

Cooper, G. (1994). The role of outdoor education in education for the 21st century.

The Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11 (2), 9-

12.

Coopersmith, S. (1984). Coopersmith self-esteem inventories. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Crompton, J.L., & Sellar, C. (1981). Do Outdoor Education experiences

contribute to positive development in the affective domain? The Journal

of

Environmental Education, 12 (4), 21-29.

Darst, P.W., & Armstrong, G.P. (1980). Outdoor adventure activities for school

and recreation programs. Minneapolis, U.S.A: Burgess Publishing

Company.

Doherty, C. (2003). The Effects of a Public School System’s one day adventure

experience. Unpublished degree thesis, University of Newcastle,

Australia.

Eagle, H. (1999). The Effects of Public School System’s One-day Adventure

Experience. Unpublished masters thesis.

Eagle, H., Gordon, J., & Lewis, L. (2002). The effects of a public school system’s

one-day adventure experience. In L.A. Stringer, L.H. McAvoy, A.B. Young

(Eds.), Coalition for education in the outdoors fifth biennial research

 64

symposium proceedings, January 14 – 15. Bradford Woods, IN: Coalition

for Education in the Outdoors.

ECAC. (1991). Report on Survey on camping / outdoor pursuit activities.

Singapore, Ministry of Education.

Ewert, A. (1989b). The history of outdoor adventure programming: A U.S.

perspective. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership,

6(4), 10-15.

Fan, X. (2001). Statistical significance and effect size in education research: Two

sides of a coin. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (5), 275-284.

Fitts, W.H. (1965). Manual for Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Los Angeles:

Western Psychological Services.

Ford, P. (1989). Outdoor Education – Definition and philosophy. Journal of P.E.,

Recreation and Dance, Feb, 31 – 34.

Garst, B., & Scheider, I., & Baker, D. (2001). Outdoor adventure program

participation impacts on adolescent self-perception. The Journal of

Experiential Education, 24 (1), 41-49.

Gass, M.A. (1993). Adventure therapy: therapeutic application of adventure

programming. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Gillett, D.P., Thomas, G.P., Skok, R.L., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1991). The effects

of wilderness camping and hiking on the self-concept and the

environmental attitudes and knowledge of twelfth graders. Journal of

Environmental Education, 22 (3), 33-43.

Glass, J.S., & Benshoff, J.M. (2002). Facilitating group cohesion among
 65

adolescents through challenge course experiences. The Journal of

Experiential Education, 25 (2), 268–277.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.

London: Bloomsbury.

Grayson, R. (1997). Research on self-esteem and camp. The Camping Magazine,

70 (6) 28.

Gubitz, K., & Kutcher, J. (1999). Facilitating identity formation for adolescent

girls using experientially-based outdoor activities. TCA Journal, 27 (1) 32

– 37.

Halliday, N. (1999). Developing self-esteem through challenge education

experiences. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70 (6),

51-58.

Hammerman, D.R., & Hammerman, W.M. (1964). Teaching in the outdoors.

Minneapolis, U.S.A: Burgess Publishing Company.

Harris, I. (2000). The development of the ‘self-concept’ of secondary school

pupils through short-term residential outdoor education experience.

Horizons, (7), 9-11.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver:

University of Denver.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure

education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a

lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87.

Henderson, K.A. (2001). Camping gives kids an endless world of good. Parks

and
 66

Recreation, 36 (11), 14-22.

Ho, C.C.C. (1994). Outdoor adventure provision in three types of schools in

Singapore. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Loughborough

University of Technology, England.

Hutchinson, J., Henderson, D., & Francis, S. (2001). A review of: Evaluation of

Pilot Summer Activities for 16 year olds: Summer 2000. Horizons, (14),

23-27.

Interest in ‘rugged’ activities tends to flag. (1990, March 13). The Straits Times.

Jackson, D.N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron,

MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Kimball, R.O. (1986). Experiential therapy for youths: The adventure model.

Children Today, 15 (2), 26 – 31.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lee, T.H. (1996). Attitudes of Singapore secondary school teachers towards

outdoor education. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation,

Loughborough University of Technology, England.

Loynes, C. (1990). Development Training in the United Kingdom. In J. Miles and

S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education. State College: Venture Publishing.

Macan, T.H. (1996). Time-management training: Effects on time behaviours,

attitudes, and job performance. The Journal of Psychology, 130 (3), 229 –

234.

Marsh, H.W., Richards, G. E., & Barnes, J. (1986). Multidimensional self-

concepts: The effect of participation in an Outward Bound program.

 67

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 195-204.

Marsh, P.E. (1999). What does Camp do for kids? A meta-analysis of the

influence of the organized camping experience on the self-constructs of

youth. Unpublished masters thesis, Indiana University, U.S.A.

McCalden, T. (2002). Other than sore muscles, what does outdoor adventure

achieve? Horizon, Spring, 34, 1-3.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people

do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.

McKenzie, M.D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes

achieved? A review of literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor

Education, 5 (1) 19-28.

McRoberts, M. (1994). Self-esteem in young offenders. Journal of Adventure

Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11 (4), 9-11.

Moote, G.T., & Wodarski, J.S. (1997). The acquisition of life skills through

adventure-based activities and programs: A review of literature.

Adolescence, 32 (125), 143 – 167.

Moote, G.T., Smyth, N.J., & Wodarski, J.S. (1999). Social skills training with

youth in school settings: A review. Research on Social Work Practice, 9

(4), 427 – 465.

Neill, J.T. (1994b). The effect of Outward Bound high school programs on

adolescents’ self-concept, mental health, and coping strategies.

Unpublished honours thesis, Australian National University, Canberra,

Australia.

Neill, J. T. (1997b). Outdoor education in schools: What can it achieve? In.

 68

Catalysts for Change: 10th National Outdoor Education Conference

Proceedings Jan 20-24, pp. 193 –201. Collaroy Beach, Sydney, Australia:

The Outdoor Professionals.

Neill, J. T. (1999). The melting pot of outdoor education effects: Testing the

flavours of program type, duration, and participant age. Paper presented

to the 11th National Outdoor Education Conference, Perth, Australia, Jan

11-15.

Neill, J.T. (1999a). Personal development outcomes of outdoor education

programs. Poster presented at the 11th Australian Human Development

Conference, July 8 –10, University of Sydney, Australia.

Neill, J.T. (2000). The Life Effectiveness Questionnaire: A tool for measuring

change. ACT, Australia: University of Canberra.

Neill, J.T. (2003). Meta-Analytic Research on the Outcomes of Outdoor

Education. Paper presented to the 6th biennial coalition for Education in

the Outdoors Research Symposium, Bradford Woods, IN, Jan 11-13.

Neill, J.T., & Flory, M. (2000a). A pilot study of the short-term and long term

effects of the women’s wilderness Institute “Girlz in the Wood” courses

on adolescents’ personal effectiveness and self-esteem. Boulder, CO: The

Women’s Wilderness Institute.

Neill, J.T., & Heubeck, B. (1998). Adolescent coping styles and outdoor

education : Searching for the mechanisms of change. In Exploring the

Boundaries of Adventure Therapy: International Perspectives. Proceedings

of the International Adventure Therapy Conference, Perth, Australia, 1, 18

– 36.
 69

Neill, J. T., & Richards, G.E. (1998). Does Outdoor Education really work? A

summary of recent meta-analyses. Australian Journal of outdoor

Education, 3 (1), 2 – 9.

Neill, J.T., Marsh, H.W., & Richards, G.E. (2003). The Life Effectiveness

Questionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney, Australia:

University of Western Sydney.

Nicholls, J.G. (Ed.) (1984). Advances in motivation and achievement Vol 3: The

development of achievement motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

O’Donnell, J. (2002). The changing role of camps. The Camping Magazine, 75

(1), 32-36.

Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. The Journal of Experiential

Education, 24 (1), 34-40.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. A. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Purdie, N., & Neill, J. (1999). Japanese students Down-Under: Is Australian

outdoor education relevant to other cultures? Australian Journal of

Outdoor Education, 4 (1), 48-57.

U.K. Department of Education and Science (1983). Learning out of doors. A HMI

survey of outdoor education and short stay residential experience. Thanet Press,

Margate, Kent.

Richards, G.E., Ellis, L.A., & Neill, J.T. (2002). The ROPELOC: Review of

Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control: A comprehensive instrument

for reviewing life effectiveness. Paper presented at Self-Concept Research:

 70

Driving International Research Agendas, 6-8 August, Sydney.

Richardson, M., & Simmons, D. (1996). Recommended Competencies for

Outdoor Educators. Retrieved off the ERIC database on 12/04/2001.

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2003, Sep 2). Future challenges of CCA in schools.

Opening address at CCA Conference 2003. Suntec City, Singapore.

Shields, D.L., Gardner, D.E., Bredemeier, B.J., & Bostro, A. (1997). The Journal

of Psychology, 131 (2), 196-211.

Sibthorp, J. (2003). An empirical look at Walsh and Golin’s adventure education

process model: Relationships between antecedent factors, perceptions of

characteristics of an adventure experience, and self-efficacy. Journal of

Leisure Research, 35 (1), 80-106.

Siow, S. S. (2000). A study of adventure-based groupwork for adolescents.

Unpublished masters thesis, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore.

Socha, T.L., Potter, T.G., & Downey, P.J. (2003). The effect of team-building on

the physical self-concept of grade 9 physical education students. The

Journal of Experiential Education, 25 (3), 347.

Stenger, T. (2001). Sequence of adventure-based resident outdoor education

programs and middle school students’ perceptions of life effectiveness.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma University, Stillwater.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York:

Harper Collins College Publishers.

Tan, H.P. (2002). The impact of an adventure programme on the self-concept and
 71

experiences of primary five students. Unpublished honours dissertation,

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Tay, C.G. (1999). Outdoor adventure provision in primary schools in Singapore.

Unpublished undergraduate dissertation. Loughborough University of

Technology, England.

Terry, L. (2002). A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on the effects of an

Adventure course: An intervention with female adolescents. Unpublished

undergraduate thesis, Scripps College, Claremont, CA.

Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1996). Research Methods in Physical activity.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. San Francisco, CA: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.