See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262576945

Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in

physical education

Article  in  Sport Education and Society · May 2014

DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2012.688807

CITATIONS READS

33 913

2 authors:

Sue Sutherland Paul T. Stuhr

The Ohio State University California State University, San Marcos
59 PUBLICATIONS   554 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mindfulness Practices Embedded in Adventure-based Learning View project

The possibilities of “doing” outdoor and/or adventure education in physical education/teacher education. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sue Sutherland on 14 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland]
On: 18 May 2012, At: 08:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sport, Education and Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

Reactions to implementing adventure-

based learning in physical education
a b
Sue Sutherland & Paul T. Stuhr
a
The Ohio State University, USA
b
California State University San Marcos, USA

Available online: 18 May 2012

To cite this article: Sue Sutherland & Paul T. Stuhr (2012): Reactions to implementing
adventure-based learning in physical education, Sport, Education and Society,
DOI:10.1080/13573322.2012.688807

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.688807

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Sport, Education and Society
2012, 1
18, iFirst Article

Reactions to implementing
adventure-based learning in physical
education
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Sue Sutherlanda* and Paul T. Stuhrb

a
The Ohio State University, USA; bCalifornia State University San Marcos, USA

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the reactions of 13 pre-service teachers
(PTs) implementing an adventure-based learning (ABL) unit through the lens of occupational
socialization. Data were collected through interviews, critical reflections and reflection of
videotaped ABL lesson. Analysis of the data resulted in two themes: (1) This is harder than I
remember and (2) Student reaction: It’s not what I expected. It can be concluded from this study
that: (1) ABL can challenge PTs prior beliefs about physical education, (2) the PTs had to
negotiate a struggle of values between the student-centered unit and the prior experience and
values of the middle school students, (3) student resistance to the unit was a strong socializing
agent for the majority of the PTs and (4) teaching small groups of students and engaging in
critical reflection with peers each day helped the PTs to persevere in the face of the student
resistance.

Keywords: Adventure-based learning; Pre-service teachers; Physical education;

Occupational socialization; Values

Physical education in US secondary schools is dominated by the multi-activity

curriculum, which typically provides students with a few lessons of skill development
in certain sports followed by numerous lessons of game play (Ennis, 2006). While
this curriculum is relatively straight forward for the teacher to implement, it has been
criticized for lacking relevance for students (Cothran & Ennis, 1999), for having
inequitable opportunities for participants (Evans, 1993; Ennis, 1999), for poor
program quality (Locke, 1992) and being isolating and degrading for students with
low skill levels in sport (Flintoff & Scraton, 2001; Bramham, 2003). Although there
are many alternative curriculum models within physical education that can address
the criticisms of the multi-activity curriculum, it remains the predominant model in
physical education. One such alternative model is adventure-based learning (ABL),
which is a student-centered model that focuses on the development of interpersonal
and intrapersonal skills. ABL is an important change to the multi-activity,

*Corresponding author. School of Physical Activity and Educational Services, College of

Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, A266 PAES Building, 305 W. 17th
Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Email: sutherland.43@osu.edu

ISSN 1357-3322 (print)/ISSN 1470-1243 online/12/0000001-18 # 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.688807
 2 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

sport based physical education curriculum in that it de-emphasizes the competitive,

win-at-all costs mentality typically associated with sport and de-emphasizes the
psychomotor goals in physical education. It is important to understand more about
the implementation of alternative curricular models such as ABL to begin to address
the problems associated with the multi-activity curriculum model. The purpose of
this study was to explore the reactions of pre-service teachers (PTs) implementing an
ABL unit in urban middle schools through the lens of occupational socialization.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Occupational socialization
Occupational socialization has been used to understand how PTs learn to teach
physical education (Schempp & Graber, 1992; Curtner-Smith & Sofo, 2004;
McMahon & MacPhail, 2007; Stran & Curtner-Smith, 2009). Lawson (1983a)
believed that ‘the socialization of physical education teachers may be seen as a life-
long process’ (p. 3). Occupational socialization has been defined as including ‘all of
the kinds of socialization that initially influence a person to enter the field of physical
education and later are responsible for their perceptions and actions as teachers’
(Lawson, 1988, p. 265). Within occupational socialization, Lawson (1983a)
identified three types of socialization: acculturation, professional socialization and
organizational socialization. Acculturation and professional socialization were
considered to be the most influential factors on the PTs’ occupational socialization
in this study.
Acculturation, which begins at birth, is concerned with the beliefs and values
about physical education with which the PTs enter the program. These beliefs and
values are influenced by the PTs prior experience in sport, physical education and
coaching and by significant others (e.g. parents, teachers and coaches). Thus,
participation in sport and physical education during school-age years is part of an
‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) that provides PTs with the basis for
what they perceive it means to be a physical education teacher (Schempp & Graber,
1992). Indeed, previous research has indicated that the type and level of sport PTs
engage in influenced their beliefs about teaching (Curtner-Smith, 1999).
The influence of Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programs on PTs
is referred to as professional socialization. This form of socialization is considered to
be the weakest and has limited impact on PTs’ beliefs about physical education
developed during the acculturation stage (Curtner-Smith, 1999; Curtner-Smith
et al., 2008). Curtner-Smith et al. (2008) stated that PETE programs have a greater
likelihood of influencing PTs positively when faculty:
‘have specialist qualifications in sport pedagogy and do not coach, have an
innovative orientation to the subject, are credible, challenge faulty beliefs, supervise
EFE’s [early field experiences] closely, and agree on a professional ideology and
what Lortie (1975) termed a ‘shared technical culture.’ (p. 100)
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 3

Adventure education
The philosophical basis for adventure education within the USA has been attributed
to the development of virtues and character building (Hunt, 1999). Historically
adventure education in the USA can trace its roots back to the camping movement
of the early twentieth century and Kurt Hahn’s Outward Bound program of the
mid-twentieth century. Today, adventure education encompasses a variety of
different programmatic influences including wilderness education, adventure-based
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

counseling, developmental adventure and challenge education. Adventure educa-

tion is defined as, ‘direct, active, and engaging learning experiences that involve the
whole person and have real consequences’ (Prouty, 2007, p. 4). Engaging in
adventure education programs can influence the intrapersonal (how an individual
functions within him or herself*personal development) and interpersonal (how an
individual functions within a group*social development) relationships of
participants (Priest & Gass, 2005). Indeed, according to Bisson (1999) and Prouty
(1999), one of the goals of adventure education programs is to foster the personal
and social development of participants through increases in self-esteem, self-
awareness, self-confidence, trust, communication skills, cooperation with others
and problem-solving skills.
Research has indicated that participation in adventure education activities has had
positive effects on self-efficacy (Sibthorp, 2003); group cohesiveness in adolescents
(Glass & Benshoff, 2002); improvements in the social and behavioral development
of adolescents (Garst et al., 2001); improved self-confidence and self-concept
(Davidson, 2001); increased social self-efficacy and social interactions of an
individual with high-functioning autism (Sutherland & Stroot, 2009); and increased
willingness and ability to look beyond a person’s disability and break through
personal and/or social barriers (Sutherland & Stroot, 2010); increased trust and
decreases in relational aggression in adolescent girls (Sammet, 2010); and increased
development of physical, expressive and moral courage in girls ages 10
17 years
(Whittington & Nixon Mack, 2010). The research in adventure education has
focused primarily on the outcomes from participation in such programs. There is an
emerging literature base highlighting the process of teaching and learning in
adventure education (Zmudy et al., 2009). However, as Brown (2006) highlighted
there is a need to further explore the pedagogy of adventure education programs.
Adventure-based learning has been deemed the most appropriate term for
adventure education in a school context (Brown, 2006). ABL is a student-centered
approach that can enhance personal and social development (Dyson & Brown, 2009)
and has increased in popularity as a curriculum model in physical education both in
the USA and UK. ABL and outdoor and adventure activities have been included in
the National Association of Sport and Physical Education standards and the
National Curriculum for Physical Education for the last 20 years (National
Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), 1991; Department of
Education and Science & the Welsh Office, 1992). ABL uses a deliberate sequence of
activities to focus on the personal and social development of students (Bisson, 1999;
 4 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

Cosgriff, 2000). Hirsch (1999) asserts that ‘developmental adventure,’ which is akin
to ABL, has the following essential features: (1) developmental goals that
intentionally seek to foster change at the intrapersonal and interpersonal level, (2)
a deliberate and sequential process, (3) the use of physical, emotional and social risk
and challenge, (4) uses a group context to foster interactions between a group and
individuals within a group and (5) engaging in the experiential cycle. ABL provides
students with the opportunity to engage in activities that are purported to build
community within a group and can arguably foster a sense of belonging and shared
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

purpose (Cosgriff, 2000). Research on ABL within physical education is in its

infancy and has focussed on student outcomes, in-service teacher experiences and
PTs learning to teach ABL.

Adventure-based learning in physical education

Empirical research on the use of ABL within physical education has indicated that it
can have an impact on both students and teachers. Dyson (1995) explored student
perceptions of adventure education in elementary schools and found that the student
goals included ‘cooperating with others, challenging themselves, taking risks, having
fun, and learning motor skills’ (Dyson, 1995, p. 397). Dyson (1996) also studied
teachers’ experiences of using a Project Adventure curriculum that focused on the
concepts of risk, trust, challenge, cooperation and problem solving within their
physical education program. This research revealed that the teachers shared
common goals of building self-esteem, student responsibility, creating a fun learning
environment within physical education, developing a healthy attitude toward
competition and used a holistic approach to education through student-centered
teaching. Dyson (1996) contends that adventure education is a valuable curricular
approach in elementary physical education.
More recently research has explored PTs learning to teach ABL within physical
education. Dillon et al. (2009) found that PTs experienced some difficulty when
teaching an ABL unit in physical education. The PTs incorporated some of the ABL
activities they experienced in their PETE program but did not include the key
aspects of ABL such as full value contract, challenge by choice, and debriefing.
Misalignment of the choice of teaching strategies and the intended outcomes of the
ABL unit were recognized by the PTs but was not a concern as long as the students
were active in the class. Leading student-centered debriefs proved to be difficult for
the PTs. Sutherland et al. (2011) explored the journey of 11 PTs incorporating a
meaningful debrief in a middle school ABL unit. The findings indicated that the PTs
had a good technical understanding of the debrief process but had difficulty
facilitating a meaningful student-centered debrief.
The works of Dillon et al. (2009) and Sutherland et al. (2011) provide initial
insight into the process of PTs teaching ABL in physical education. However, there
are still questions to be explored relative to how PTs learn to implement innovative
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 5

curricula within the constraints of an urban middle school environment and

negotiate student reaction to these curricula.

Method
Qualitative inquiry was used to explore the experiences of PTs teaching ABL to
urban middle school students (ages 11
14 years). Two research questions guided
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

this study: (1) What were the PTs’ reactions to teaching ABL? and (2) How did
the PTs react to the response of the middle school students to ABL? The study
took place at a large research university and three middle schools in a large urban
school district in a Midwestern city in the USA. At the time of the study, the PTs
were enrolled in the secondary school physical education methods course which
includes a five-week internship experience in middle schools, serving grades
6
8 (ages 11
14 years). A seven-day ABL unit was taught to small groups of
8
12 students. Each PT taught ABL to at least two different groups of students.
This small group format provided the students with the opportunity to concentrate
on the content of the unit without having to address many class management
issues, such as organization, equipment, off-task behavior and disruptive student
behavior.

Teacher candidate preparation in ABL

A 10-week PETE ABL course that met twice a week for 1 hour 48 minutes
per session provided the PTs with the experience, content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge for teaching ABL. The purpose of the course was
to introduce ABL, specifically how it can be used to build community among
Kindergarten-Grade 12 (ages 5-18 years) students and to foster interpersonal and
intrapersonal growth. The five essential features of ABL outlined by Hirsch (1999)
provided the framework for the course. The course focused on the theory underlying
ABL, experiential learning, the importance of sequence and flow of activities in ABL,
the concepts of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, the role of the facilitator, the
importance of processing (brief and debrief, including how to transfer learning)
within ABL, direct experience of activities and opportunities for facilitation of
activities.
In teaching ABL in our PETE program, we utilize a variety of games and initiatives
to move the cohort through the sequence of communication, cooperation, trust and
problem solving. This sequence aligns with previous research in the field of
adventure education (Bisson, 1999; Prouty, 1999). ABL was intentionally included
in the PETE program (1) as a model to foster interpersonal and intrapersonal growth
in K-12 students, (2) its potential ability to query the notions of sportspersonship,
competition, win-at-all cost mentality and hegemonic masculinity within physical
 6 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

education and (3) as an alternative to the sport education model infused throughout
the PETE program.

Setting
The three middle schools used in this study were part of an urban school district
within a large Midwestern city. Each school had two physical education teachers and
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

the students received daily physical education (42 minute lessons) for one semester
(18 weeks) per year. Physical education was taught in all three schools using a multi-
activity curriculum.

Participants
Thirteen PTs (five women and eight men who all self-identified as Caucasian)
enrolled in the secondary methods course agreed to participate in this study. All of
the PTs were from middle class backgrounds and attended suburban public schools
within the State, with the exception of one PT who attended Catholic School. The
PTs valued education and hard work and entered the undergraduate program to
pursue a career in teaching physical education. At this point in the PETE program,
the PTs had no experience teaching physical education in urban schools. The PTs
aligned with the NASPE content standards for physical education in their
conceptualization of a physically educated student. The six NASPE content
standards (Table 1) provide a framework for defining the subject matter for physical
education in the USA.
Consistent with the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), each participant
gave informed consent to participate in the study. All PTs had prior experience with
adventure education: 10 of the 13 PTs had completed the ABL course; one was
taking it concurrently with the methods course; two had taken a course in adventure
education at other universities, but these courses were not designed for physical
education majors; and one PT indicated she had participated in a facilitator training
with a local adventure education organization.

Table 1. NASPE (2004) content standards for physical education

Standard 1 Demonstrates competency in motor skills and movement patterns needed to perform
a variety of physical activities.
Standard 2 Demonstrates understanding of movement concepts, principles, strategies and
tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of physical activities.
Standard 3 Participates regularly in physical activity.
Standard 4 Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical fitness.
Standard 5 Exhibits responsible personal and social behavior that respects self and others in
physical activity settings.
Standard 6 Values physical activity for health, enjoyment, challenge, self-expression and/or social
interaction.
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 7

Data collection
Data were collected using three methods: interviews, critical friends (CF) (daily
reflections) and reflection of videotaped ABL Lesson. All three data collection
methods involved reflection upon the primary experience of teaching ABL to middle
school students. Although all 13 PTs provided informed consent to participate in the
study when asked to participate in two face-to-face interviews, only seven PTs agreed
based on their class schedule and other time commitments. As the instructor of the
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

course was also one of the authors and thus held power over the PTs in terms of a
grade for the course, no additional measures were taken to recruit the remaining
eight students for the interviews. It should be noted that during the internship
experience, the PTs’ grades were determined by the university supervisor not the
course instructor. Data from the other two sources were used for all 13 participants.

Interviews. The PTs were interviewed twice during this study. Each interview,
ranging from 25 to 40 minutes, was conducted using a semi-structured
interview guide, was audio taped and was transcribed verbatim. The focus of the
first interview was on preparation in ABL, areas of strength and concern in ABL, the
first week’s experience in schools, learning related to ABL, teaching and students,
and future impact on ABL. The second interview focused on questions related to
what was learned about ABL, teaching and students, areas of confidence and
concern in their teaching of ABL, student response to the unit, and understanding of
the sequence of ABL, brief, debrief and facilitation.

Critical friends*daily reflections. Each day the PTs participated in a reflective

process, called CF, with their peers and university supervisors. Small groups of 3
4
PTs discussed questions related to their experience and how this would impact their
teaching in future lessons. The questions included what the PTs learned that day
about their students, planning, class management, instruction, ABL and anything
else that was not covered in previous questions. The CF process was facilitated by
the PTs using the guiding questions on the reflection sheet. The CF reflection sheet
listed the daily questions followed by two columns: (1) one in which the PTs
recorded their discussion on what they learned that day related the specific questions
and (2) one where, based on their reflections, they listed what changes they would
make to the lessons for the next day. The CF sheets provided daily reflective data
from each PT on the process of teaching ABL.

Reflection of a videotaped ABL lesson. As part of the course requirements, each PT

completed a reflective analysis of a videotape of one of their ABL lessons. Each PT
analyzed her/his videotape according to: (1) how the activities were framed, (2)
gender equity, (3) facilitation technique and (4) quality of the debrief. Using the
analysis, the PTs wrote a 2
3 page reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the
lesson. This assignment provided the PTs with the opportunity to reflect in detail on
three crucial aspects of teaching ABL: framing or introducing the activity, how the
activities were facilitated, and the debrief process. In addition, the PTs were asked to
 8 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

analyze gender equity in the lesson relative to their interactions with the students,
student roles and participation in the lesson, and student to student interaction. The
data from this assignment provided an in-depth reflection on teaching an ABL lesson
in urban schools.

Data analysis
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Data were analyzed using line by line coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and constant
comparison (Patton, 2002) and was guided by occupational socialization (Lawson,
1983a). Prior to coding, each page of data was read multiple times to ensure an
overall view of the data corpus. In the initial phase of the analysis the data were
scrutinized and compared line by line and codes were assigned to each piece of data.
A codebook was utilized to organize the codes and lead to the formation of initial
themes. As the themes were developed each piece of data was constantly compared
to other data to confirm or disconfirm the finding.
Trustworthiness was established using four methods. The data were triangulated
through the use of two investigators and multiple data sources (Merriam, 2009).
During the analysis process, themes were cross checked against all data sources and
were accepted or rejected based on this evidence and interpretation. Member checking
was used for the interview data to allow the PTs to read the transcripts and comment
on the accuracy of their interview. All PTs agreed with the transcripts and did not add
any additional information. Peer debriefing occurred on an ongoing basis throughout
this study as a process through which we could challenge our interpretations of the
data. Negative case analysis was employed where data that did not support the theme
was used to refine or revise tentative themes (Patton, 2002). The process of negative
case analysis helped to ensure that all aspects of the data were taken into consideration,
not just those that strengthened the emerging themes.

Findings
Analysis of the data resulted in the identification of two themes that reflected the
experiences of the PTs implementing an ABL unit in urban middle schools. The
themes were: (1) This is harder than I remember and (2) Student reaction: It’s not
what I expected. The following codes are used in reporting our findings: First
interviews (I1), second interview (I2), CF followed by D# to reflect the day within
the unit, and reflection of ABL lesson (ABL Reflection).

This is harder than I remember

The PTs’ initial reaction to teaching an ABL unit varied between those who were
very excited to those who were not confident. Belief in their level of content
knowledge in ABL had a strong influence on the PTs’ reaction. The PTs who
expressed that they felt more confident in the content and/or believed in the benefits
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 9

of ABL had a more positive reaction to the unit. Amber stated, ‘I was actually really
excited because every time I’ve done ABL it’s been a lot of fun so I thought it would
be something new for these kids, so maybe they would be really excited about it’ (I1).
Toni was pleased about getting to teach the unit saying, ‘I think ABL is amazing
because it just teaches those foundations and getting people to work with each other’
(I1). Those students who had not taken the ABL course prior to the internship did
not feel as confident in teaching the ABL unit. Amanda stated that she, ‘did not have
the background that everyone else had . . . my ABL content knowledge was probably
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

not what it should have been, and so I really was kind of thrown into it’ (I2). Thus,
she clearly felt that the PETE program had not prepared her for this experience.
Candy’s initial reaction was, ‘I was a little scared just because I haven’t had a whole
lot of experience in it’ (I1).
Overall, the majority of the PTs believed they were prepared for the ABL unit in
relation to understanding and knowing the content, having some experience
facilitating a group and designing a unit plan for ABL. Despite the multi-activity
team sport based physical education program that the PTs indicated they
experienced during their acculturation phase, the undergraduate ABL course seemed
to have provided positive experiences which influenced the PTs belief in the value of
ABL. Ryan explained that he was very confident because, ‘this stuff [ABL] I’ve had
for a couple of years now, I know 90% of these activities’ (I1). When asked if they felt
prepared to teach an ABL unit Alan responded, ‘I felt very prepared when we were
able to use all of the materials we have designed in earlier classes’ (I1). Amber stated,
‘I felt really prepared. I felt like I know this stuff and that I would be able to tell them
what I needed from them, explain the activities, and explain the reasons why we were
doing it’ (I1). Thus, it seemed that the content knowledge the majority of the PTs
gained in the undergraduate ABL course provided them with confidence to teach the
ABL unit. However, it could also be that the PTs were viewing ‘knowing this stuff’ as
knowing the activities and considered this to be the main content knowledge for
ABL. The mismatch between the PTs understanding of content knowledge for ABL
and the level of content knowledge needed to implement ABL successfully could be
the reason why the PTs found it harder than they remembered.
Most of the PTs experienced disjuncture in relation to feeling being prepared to
teach ABL and how the unit was progressing during the first few days. Right from the
start of the unit a number of PTs had students who did not react in a positive way to
ABL. This reaction can be attributed to the contextual mismatch between the multi-
activity approach the students were used to and the more student-centered ABL
approach, or to ineffective teaching. Alex, who was excited about teaching ABL, had
this excitement tempered on the first day when, ‘I was outside and it was windy, it
was kind of rough because a lot of kids weren’t buying into it. They didn’t really
know me, so they were like why should we listen to you’ (I1). Candy felt that her
choice of activities on the first day started her unit on the wrong foot as she chose
activities to learn student names which the students found boring. At the end of the
unit, Candy reflected that ABL is, ‘more difficult to teach. Sports are related to other
sports. ABL, I had nothing really to relate it to. It’s not really similar to anything that
 10 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

I’ve really done in the past’ (I2). This could be further explained in how Candy
perceived her students responding to the ABL unit, ‘I think they want to come to
phys ed and do some activity to blow off steam. I don’t think that they really want to
come and talk’ (I2). It was evident that Candy was not convinced of the value of ABL
within physical education. Candy’s belief in the value of physical education was
grounded in providing students with, ‘a variety of individual and team sports to meet
the NASPE Standards’ (I1) that would allow them to engage in a lifetime of physical
activity.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Student reaction: it’s not what I expected

The reactions of the middle school students to the ABL unit seemed to have a strong
impact on the PTs. The majority of the PTs’ previous experience with ABL was so
positive that they felt the students would react positively. However, the initial
negative reaction of the students was a shock to the PTs and is represented through
the sub-theme of student resistance. Despite the student resistance to the unit, the
majority of the PTs observed student growth relative to interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills.

Student resistance. The disjuncture that the majority of the PTs experienced during
the first few days of the unit was related to student resistance. This resistance was not
expected by the PTs and took them by surprise. The students proved to be a
powerful socializing agent (Placek & Dodds, 1988) for the PTs during the ABL unit.
The student resistance ranged from not participating fully in the activities, to the
blatant sabotage of the PTs authority and the group’s opportunity to learn. Toni
stated that she had, ‘kids sticking their hands in their pockets. I had kids who just
didn’t want to do anything; so it really was a shock’ (I1). Adam reflected that, ‘They
are ruthless! It was really tough going, they were just terrible to each other . . . they
said discouraging words to each other and to me. Some kids did not want to
participate and would disrupt the group’ (ABL Reflection). Candy felt there was a
different response from the students in the two classes she taught with her first group
being highly receptive to the unit and her second group saying, ‘this is dumb, this is
stupid, why are we doing this, what does this have to do with phys ed?’ (I2).
For Amber the student resistance was so strong initially that it caused her a great
deal of frustration, ‘It had never really occurred to me that it wasn’t going to work,
and that these kids weren’t going to buy into it. Cause every experience that I have
ever had has been so good’ (I1). Her previous positive experiences in ABL had led
Amber to believe that the students would enjoy the unit. She could not understand
why her students did not value or see the purpose of ABL. She elaborated on the
issue in detail in her first interview, ‘I’ve already had to take one kid out of my group
and move him to another because they would just fight and scream at each other the
entire time and it wasn’t going to work’ (I1). One of Amber’s peers also commented
on her situation:
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 11

We have a couple of kids at our school that are to be blunt, they’re punks and they’ll
do anything to make the group not do what it is supposed to be doing . . . Amber did
as much as she possibly could to get these two kids to do the activity . . . she even
gave them options of what they could do but they just said this is stupid, this is
boring, she couldn’t win with them. (Ryan, I1)
Amber felt that by removing the one boy from her group the situation would improve
but that was not the case:
Now I’ve got a girl in my group who just screams at a boy the entire time, and then
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

this other boy who just runs around and picks up and throws equipment
everywhere. He can’t stand still. So I just can’t get them to work together at all. (I1)
As might be expected in this situation, Amber focused on student behavior as the
reason the group did not work together. During one lesson when one of the boys
refused to participate and sat out the, ‘group got through all the activities just fine’
(Amber I1). This lesson solidified Amber’s belief that student behavior was the issue
in her group:
He likes being the one that makes the group fail. So that’s really frustrating because
there is no way to change his attitude right now. He likes the attention he gets from
making everybody frustrated . . . But it’s really frustrating. (I1)
Ryan also felt that student behavior was the issue for Amber, ‘From what I have
observed of him already, he needs something. I don’t know what it is. I felt bad for
Amber because she started crying and it just kind of snowballed from there’ (I1).
Student misbehavior caused Amber to modify the activities she had planned for the
unit:
I did one tag game and I haven’t done one since. Even though we went over safety
beforehand, they didn’t care and one of them was going around smacking the girls
much harder than he should have been. Even after we stopped and I had him tag
me to show him how hard you are supposed to tag someone. Well as soon as we
started again he started smacking and I was like okay no more tag games. (I1)
As would be expected, this situation took its toll on Amber who stated, ‘I learned I
am nowhere near the teacher I want to be. I have a lot of work to do and that I may
take things too personally. I need to stay focused and positive’ (CF D2). Amber had
experienced ABL as part of her acculturation phase in physical education and her
belief in ABL was strengthened during her professional socialization in the PETE
program. Even in the face of blatant student resistance her belief in ABL held strong
and made her more determined to, ‘reach these kids . . . I am more motivated
because I want to come in and think okay we’re going to have a great lesson this time.
I was determined not to let this group beat me’ (I1).
The PTs who were at the same school as Amber really seemed to emphasize the
importance of different management strategies to address misbehaving students.
Colin stated that he would, ‘Let a student sit out until they are ready to behave
correctly’ (CF D2). He also believed that, ‘Using a point system as a tool can help
with behavior management through peer pressure in the group’ (CF D4). Justin
reflected that, ‘John, who was put in my group because he had behavior issues in his
 12 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

last group, performed very well today. We have a contract. If he works hard during
class he will have 5 minutes to play basketball’ (CF D3). The PTs at this school
reacted to the student resistance very behaviorally which is incongruent with ABL.
Rather than allowing the process of ABL to impact student behavior through the
fostering of increased interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, these PTs reverted back
to the behavioral foundations of the PETE program. In the face of student resistance,
the PTs’ belief in ABL was clearly tested and they reverted back to the behavior
management they learned during their professional socialization.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Other PTs had similar experiences related to student resistance but their
perseverance with ABL resulted in the eventual acceptance of the unit by students.
Toni, who experienced a reality shock the first day, reflected later in the unit that,
‘Sometimes students say it’s boring, but get into it quick’ and, in fact, in one lesson
had a student who, ‘was hurt but quickly joined in when she saw how much fun it
was’ (CF D4). Alex, who noted that students were ‘not sure about it at first,’ found
that the students ‘really started to enjoy the activities of ABL’ (CF D7). At the end of
the unit, Alan reflected on the student resistance he encountered:
. . . they [students] seem to be very concerned about what is cool and how to act
cool. If you, or an activity, asks them to step out of the box and the rest of their
peers are not stepping out then they will refuse. They will step out as a group but
with much motivation from the teacher and each other. It is hard to step in as a new
person and gain their trust. (I2)

Student growth. The area of student growth seemed to be a strong influence on the
PTs’ belief in the effectiveness of ABL. With a relatively short unit, the majority of
the PTs felt the groups had become more cohesive and, to varying degrees,
demonstrated both interpersonal and intrapersonal growth (Priest & Gass, 2005).
Some of the PTs perceived this growth to begin early in the ABL unit and continue
to progress throughout the remainder of the unit. For others, it took longer for the
PTs to recognize that the students had further developed both interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills.
Amber had one group who initially showed resistance to the activities and working
together. However, although the progress was slower than she had initially hoped,
Amber commented that the students had come together more as a group by the end
of the unit:
The first couple of days we had just yelling at each other, trying to get them to pay
attention . . . But now in a group they’ll be like, ‘Okay well I have an idea’ and they’d
sit and listen, then they all try it and if it doesn’t work then, ‘okay well how about we
try this instead.’ (I2)
Alex also remarked how his group had come together during the course of the unit,
‘The group really does grow; ABL is a great instrument. At first they would not work
together or even touch hands and by the end of the unit, teamwork and touching
were not a problem for the students’ (I2). He went on to explain that, ‘a kid that
cussed at me like two weeks ago was the leader of his group and was offering advice
and suggestions to the rest of his group’ (I2). Nevertheless, although he noticed the
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 13

change in the physical education context, he did question whether it would continue
beyond the gymnasium. Justin reflected upon the growth in his students on both a
group and individual level. His groups had been slow to accept ABL initially, but had
made clear progress over the seven sessions:
Today’s lesson was very rewarding to me as a teacher. This was the last day of the
unit and the students did so well with each activity. It was almost unbelievable for
me to see this level of teamwork and support happen. I felt great when I could look
back at the first day of instruction and remember that the students would not even
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

hold hands or even work on simple tasks together. (CF D7)

For Colin this growth occurred earlier in the unit. On day four he reflected that, ‘they
are starting to put together all of the different things we have worked on and using
them in our activities’ (CF D4).
Overall the PTs perceived that the seven-day unit had provided positive outcomes
for the students. The areas of student growth observed by the PTs included
communication, cooperation, support, encouragement of others, teamwork, coming
together as a group and leadership. One of the main tenets of ABL is the transfer of
learning to life beyond the gymnasium which was covered in detail during the ABL
course, but most PTs did not make this connection during their reflections or
interviews. Thus, there was a clear disconnect between what the PTs had learned in
the ABL course and how they facilitated the debrief in schools, which is in line with
the findings of Sutherland et al. (2011). The exception was Alex, who wondered if
the increase in appropriate behavior towards each other continued outside the
gymnasium, ‘I was curious to see if they actually did that in the rest of their classes,
or if it was just to please us. But I don’t know, it’s certainly a start you know’ (I2).

Discussion
Adventure-based learning (ABL) is based on the values of fostering intrapersonal
and interpersonal growth in participants through the use of a deliberate sequence of
activities, combined with purposeful reflection. While the promotion of interpersonal
(personal) and intrapersonal (social) development aligns with NASPE content
standard 5, it is incongruent with the multi-activity curriculum model that dominates
secondary school physical education in the USA. The physical education curriculum
in the three schools included in this study was a multi-activity team sport curriculum.
The result of this incongruence between ABL, the multi-activity curriculum, the PTs
values and beliefs of the purpose of physical education and ABL, and the students’
beliefs and values of physical education can be understood as a struggle of values.
Including the ABL course in the undergraduate PETE program was a deliberate
choice by the program faculty to provide the PTs with a social responsibility
orientation (Ennis & Chen, 1993) toward physical education that specifically focuses
on NASPE Standards 5 and 6 (Table 1). Despite experiencing a multi-activity team
sport physical education curriculum in their acculturation phase and their alignment
with the concept of a physically educated student outlined in the NASPE content
 14 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

standards for physical education, the PTs in this study seemed to support the values
espoused in ABL. When teaching the ABL unit, the value systems of the majority of
the PTs toward physical education were clearly not aligned with those of the students
in their classes. Based on a number of previous observations in the three schools by
the faculty, university supervisors and PTs prior to the start of the secondary
methods internship, it seemed that the students in these schools experienced physical
education as a place where competitive individual and team sports were the norm,
where very little skill instruction was provided by the teacher, where high skilled or
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

motivated students enthusiastically engaged in game play, and where personal and
social responsibility was not a strong focus. Thus, the student-centered focus of the
ABL unit, which values intrapersonal and interpersonal growth within a cooperative
learning environment, was in stark contrast to the students’ prior experience in
physical education. Research in middle schools has shown that students model
certain behaviors to be accepted and avoid rejection by their peers (Blanton &
Burkley, 2008) and that students are concerned with being termed ‘teacher’s pet’ if
they adhere to teacher expectations (Gorman et al., 2002). In teaching ABL, the PTs
were asking the students to engage in activities that were fundamentally different
from the norm and not accepted by many of their peers. The result of this contrast
was that the students initially resisted the ABL unit and, in some cases, the intrusion
of the PTs in their physical education classes.
In two of the middle schools, the student resistance took the form of blatantly
sabotaging the PTs authority and the groups’ opportunity to learn. A number of
students in these schools did not want to engage in the ABL activities and showed
their resistance in very overt ways. It was more important for the students to show
resistance to the PTs and ABL activities in front of their peers. This finding is in line
with the work of Galvan et al. (2011) who found that middle school students valued
an antisocial reputation and being an academic slacker, both of which were
associated with improved social status.
Viewed through the lens of occupational socialization, the findings of this study
both support and refute previous research. In line with previous research in physical
education (Curtner-Smith, 1999), the professional socialization imparted by the
PETE program specifically related to the value of ABL in physical education did not
impact Candy’s acculturation in physical education. For Candy, there was a clear
struggle between the social responsibility orientation of the ABL unit and her own
values in physical education, which is in line with the findings of Placek (1992). Her
belief that physical education should provide students with a variety of individual and
team sports to achieve the NASPE content standards for physical education endured
and was perhaps further reinforced by the student resistance to ABL. In contrast,
however, and contrary to previous research (Curtner-Smith, 1999), the PETE
program seems to have been successful in providing the majority of the PTs with a
positive experience during their professional socialization that challenged their prior
experience and belief about physical education (Schempp & Graber, 1992).
The weight of the student resistance to the unit did not result in the majority of the
PTs adopting a watered down version of the unit or abandoning certain aspects of
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 15

ABL, although some did revert to using behavior management techniques that did not
align with the philosophy of ABL. Adhering to the full version of an innovate
instructional unit is in contrast to previous studies on learning to teach sport education
(McCaughtry et al., 2004; McMahon & MacPhail, 2007). Contradictory to earlier
findings, it did not seem that the previously learned curricular approach (Sport
Education) within the PETE program hindered the learning of ABL. Although it is
impossible to know if these PTs will continue to use ABL in their own physical
education programs, it is argued here that, unlike previous research related to learning
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

to teach sport education (McCaughtry et al., 2004) and movement education

(Rovegno, 1993), the majority of the PTs bought into and valued ABL. This study
supports previous research (Stran & Curtner-Smith, 2009) relative to commitment to
teaching the full version of an innovative curriculum model. However, the extent to
which the presence of the university supervisors influenced the PTs adherence to the
full version of ABL is worthy of comment. The power in the internship clearly lay with
the supervisors, who were responsible for assigning grades for the course. The PTs
were not free to water down or abandon the unit without jeopardizing their grade. If
free to choose their own curriculum it would be interesting to see if the PTs would
continue to teach a full version of ABL when faced with student resistance. While we
point to the content knowledge received in the undergraduate ABL course influencing
the PTs belief in and adherence to ABL, the power dynamics of the situation cannot be
ignored. Lawson (1983b) indicates that professional socialization is often marked by
temporary acceptance of a shared technical culture and professional ideology, in this
case ABL, as a means to please those in control. Lawson contends that this process can
provide a means of combating organizational socialization and further enhancing the
impact of the PETE program on the PTs.

Conclusion
The findings from this study indicated that the PTs experienced a struggle of values in
teaching a student-centered unit which was in contrast to the experience and values of
the middle school students. The middle school students were a strong socializing agent
for the majority of the PTs and the student resistance they encountered was not
expected. Teaching small groups and having support from peers and university
supervisors were important factors for the PTs when learning to teach an alternative
model in the face of student resistance. The CF process allowed the students to
critically reflect on their teaching on a daily basis during the internship. The
professional socialization gained during PETE programs can challenge the majority
of the PTs ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) and prior beliefs about
physical education (Schempp & Graber, 1992). The undergraduate ABL course
seemed to provide the PTs with a foundation (content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge) to teach ABL in urban middle schools.
In light of the findings of this study, we make the following recommendations for
teaching alternative curricula in PETE programs. First, provide PTs with a specific
 16 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

course in the curriculum that includes both content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge. Siedentop (2002) suggested that in-depth content knowledge of
an activity is vital to successful teaching of that activity. Second, provide PTs with
multiple early field experiences where they observe an experienced teacher
facilitating innovative curricula in schools. These experiences will provide the PTs
with an opportunity to see how to teach innovative curricular in schools and discuss
instances of student resistance to curriculum when it occurs.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

References
Bisson, C. (1999) Sequencing the adventure experience, in: J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds) Adventure
programming (State College, Venture Publishing), 205
214.
Blanton, H. & Burkley, M. (2008) Deviance regulation theory: applications to adolescent social
influence, in: M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds) Understanding peer influence in children and
adolescents (New York, Guilford), 94
121.
Bramham, P. (2003) Boys, masculinities and PE, Sport, Education and Society, 8, 57
71.
Brown, M. (2006) Adventure education and physical education, in: D. Kirk, D. Macdonald & M.
O’Sullivan (Eds) The handbook of physical education (Thousand Oaks, Sage), 685
702.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (3rd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage).
Cosgriff, M. (2000) Walking our talk: adventure based learning and physical education, Journal of
Physical Education New Zealand, 33, 89
98.
Cothran, D. & Ennis, C. D. (1999) Alone in a crowd: meeting students needs for relevance and
connection in urban high school physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
18, 234
247.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1999) The more things change the more they stay the same: factors
influencing teachers’ interpretations and delivery of national curriculum physical education,
Sport, Education & Society, 4, 75
97.
Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A. & Kinchin, G. D. (2008) Influence of occupational
socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education, Sport,
Education and Society, 13, 91
117.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. & Sofo, S. (2004) Preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching within sport
education and multi-activity units, Sport, Education and Society, 9, 347
377.
Davidson, L. (2001) Qualitative research and making meaning from adventure: a case study of
boys’ experiences of outdoor education at school, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 1, 11
20.
Department of Education and Science & the Welsh Office. (1992) Physical education in the national
curriculum (London, HMSO).
Dillon, M., Tannehill, D. & O’Sullivan, M. (2009) Learning to teach adventure education:
Preservice teachers’ perspectives and experiences, in: A. MacPhail & A. Young (Eds)
Promoting physical education and across schools and communities, Proceedings of Fourth Physical
Education, Physical Activity and Youth Sport Forum (PE-PAYS) (Limerick, University of
Limerick), 39
48.
Dyson, B. (1995) Student voices in two alternative elementary physical education programs,
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 394
407.
Dyson, B. (1996) Two physical education teachers’ experience of Project Adventure, Journal of
Experiential Education, 19, 90
97.
Dyson, B. & Brown, M. (2009) Adventure education in your physical education program, in: J.
Lund & D. Tannehill (Eds) Standards-based physical education curriculum development (2nd
edn) (Sudbury, Jones and Bartlett Publishers), 219
246.
 Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education 17

Ennis, C. D. (1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls, Sport, Education
& Society, 4, 31
49.
Ennis, C. D. (2006) Canaries in the coal mine: responding to disengaged students using theme
based curricular, Quest, 52, 119
130.
Ennis, C. D. & Chen, A. (1993) Domain specifications and content representativeness of the
revised value orientation inventory, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 436
446.
Evans, J. (1993) Equality, education and physical education (Washington, Falmer Press).
Flintoff, A. & Scraton, S. (2001) Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s perceptions of active
lifestyles and their experiences of school physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 6,
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

5
21.
Galvan, A., Spatzier, A. & Juvonen, J. (2011) Perceived norms and social values to capture school
culture in elementary and middle school, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32,
346
353.
Garst, B., Scheider, I. & Baker, D. (2001) Outdoor adventure program participation impacts on
adolescent self perception, Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 41
49.
Glass, J. S. & Benshoff, J. M. (2002) Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through
challenge course experiences, Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 268
277.
Gorman, A. H., Kim, J. & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002) The attributes adolescence associate with
peer popularity and teacher preference, Journal of School Psychology, 40, 143
165.
Hirsch, J. (1999) Developmental adventure programs, in: J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds) Adventure
programming (State College, Venture Publishing), 13
28.
Hunt, J. S. (1999) Philosophy of adventure education, in: J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds) Adventure
programming (State College, Venture Publishing), 115
132.
Lawson, H. A. (1983a) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: the
subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1), Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 2, 3
16.
Lawson, H. A. (1983b) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: entry into
schools, teachers’ role orientations and longevity in teaching (part 2), Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 3, 3
15.
Lawson, H. (1988) Occupational socialization, cultural studies, and the physical education
curriculum, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 265
288.
Locke, L. (1992) Changing secondary school physical education, Quest, 44, 361
372.
Lortie, D. (1975) School-teacher: a sociological study (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
McCaughtry, N., Sofo, S., Rovegno, I. & Curtner-Smith, M. (2004) Learning to teach sport
education: misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance, European Physical
Education Review, 10, 135
155.
McMahon, E. & MacPhail, A. (2007) Learning to teach sport-education: the experience of a pre-
service teacher, European Physical Education Review, 13, 229
246.
Merriam, S. B. (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation (San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass Publishers).
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (1991) The physically educated
person: outcomes and benchmarks for quality education programs (Reston, NASPE).
Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage).
Placek, J. H. (1992) Rethinking middle school physical education curriculum: an integrated,
thematic approach, Quest, 44, 330
341.
Placek, J. H. & Dodds, P. (1988) A critical incident study of preservice teachers’ beliefs about
teaching success and nonsuccess, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 351
358.
Priest, S. & Gass, M. A. (2005) Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd edn)
(Champaign, Human Kinetics).
Prouty, D. (1999) Project adventure: a brief history, in: J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds) Adventure
programming (State College, Venture Publishing), 93
101.
 18 S. Sutherland and P. T. Stuhr

Prouty, D. (2007) Introduction to adventure education, in: D. Prouty, J. Panicucci & R. Collinson
(Eds) Adventure education: theory and applications (Champaign, Human Kinetics), 3
17.
Rovegno, I. (1993) The development of curricular knowledge: a case of problematic pedagogical
content knowledge during advanced knowledge acquisition, Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport, 64, 56
68.
Sammet, K. (2010) Relationships matter: adolescent girls and relational development in adventure
education, Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 151
165.
Schempp, P. G. & Graber, K. (1992) Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective:
pretraining through induction, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 329
348.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries], [Sue Sutherland] at 08:07 18 May 2012

Sibthorp, J. (2003) An empirical look at Walsh and Golins’ adventure education process model:
relationships between antecedent factors, perceptions of characteristics of an adventure
education experience, and changes in self-efficacy, Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 80
106.
Siedentop, D. (2002) Content knowledge in physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 21, 368
377.
Stran, M. & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2009) Influence of occupational socialization on two
preservice teachers’ interpretation and delivery of the sport education model, Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 38
53.
Sutherland, S., Ressler, J. & Stuhr, P. T. (2011) Adventure-based learning and reflection: the
journey of one cohort of teacher candidates, International Journal of Human Movement
Science, 5(2), 5
24.
Sutherland, S. & Stroot, S. A. (2009) Brad’s story: exploration of an inclusive adventure education
experience, Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 3, 27
40.
Sutherland, S. & Stroot, S. A. (2010) The impact of participation in an inclusive adventure
education trip on group dynamics, Journal of Leisure Research, 42, 153
167.
Whittington, A. & Nixon Mack, E. (2010) Inspiring courage in girls: an evaluation of practices and
outcomes, Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 166
180.
Zmudy, M. H., Curtner-Smith, M. D. & Steffen, J. (2009) Influence of occupational socialization
on the practices and perspectives of two inexperienced adventure educators, Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9, 115
134.

View publication stats