Exploration of Challenge Courses' Long-Term Effects on Members of College Student Organizations

This application of mind examined the long-term effects of participation in a half-day, low-element challenge course upon the group functioning of members of association student organizations. Seventy-six participants complet measures of cluster cohesion, group effectiveness, and individual effectiveness within the assemblage at four points in time: (a) individual week prior to the course (baseline), (b) immediately prior to the course (pretest) (c) immediately following the course (posttest) (d) and sum of two units months after the course (follow-up) originates showed no change in assemblage functioning from baseline to pretest significant increases in collection functioning from pretest to posttest and a get back to pretest levels of collection functioning at follow-up. Implications of these be the effects and ideas for extending the longevity of challenge course gains are discussed.

Keywords: Challenge Course, Cohesion, Experiential Learning

Challenge courses, also known as draw as by a ropes courses, have become increasingly popular in new years and have been used in a wide variety of settings, including academy campuses, corporations, inpatient facilities, and correctional institutions (eg Bronson Gibson, Kichar, & Priest, 1992; Chakravorty, Trunnell & ElH 1995; Davis, Ray, & Sayles, 1995; Meyer 2000) Although participation in these programs has been associated with immediate individual and cluster improvement in interpersonal functioning (Attarian & Holden 2001; Bronson et al., 1992; Glass & Benshoff, 2002; Goldenberg, Klenosky, O' Leary, & Templin, 2000) there exists a dearth of empirical research upon the effectiveness of challenge courses. In Bunting and Donley's (2002) review of challenge course research from the 1990 alone 19 outcome studies emerged, of which 14 were unpublished dissertations. Coupl with the absence of reporting data (i.e., means and standard deviations) in a certain quantity of of these studies, the limited number of published studies l Bunting and Donley to close that "quality studies" must be performed in order to assess challenge course efficacy. A notable shortcoming of the scant challenge course literature that does exist is the absence of longitudinal studies (Glass & Benshoff, 2002) Because the majority of published challenge course studies address sole the short-term effects of challenge courses, the not absent study was designed to address this gap in the literature. Specifically, this research assessed the impact of a challenge course program upon group functioning in the sum of two units months following challenge course participation. A brief review of challenge course practice and research will first be provided, followed by means of a description of the not absent study.

Challenge course programs usually last from one-half to 2 days (Davis et al., 1995) and are located in settings ranging from wilderness locales to indoor facilities in urban environments. They are compos of a series of mentally and physically challenging activities that call upon participants to work together to explain problems and draw upon individual another for support (Long, 1984) Challenge courses typically include ground-level (i.e., within 2 meter of the ground) "low fastens elements," or "low elements," and ultimate parts that are higher than 2 meter known as "high fastens elements," or "high elements." The uncompounded bodys are composed of such materials as cinder arrests logs, cables, planks, and draw as by a ropes (Hart & Silka, 1994; Meyer 2000; Neill, 2004) For safety drifts high elements utilize belays and depressed elements employ spotters (Priest, 1996b) Usually, the goal of depressed elements is to facilitate cohesion and teamwork, while the aim of high ultimate parts is to promote individual risk-taking (Goldenberg et al., 2000) Challenge courses may also include "initiatives," which are assemblage problem-solving activities that do not require belays or spotter Aimed at promoting team disentanglement (Priest, 1996b), group initiatives are ofttimes included in low element challenge courses.

Following each challenge course activity, course facilitators lead a reflection and synthesis period, also known as "debriefing" or "processing" (Luckner & Nadler, 1995; Priest, 1996b) The aims of debriefing are: (a) to make bare the parallel between the experience upon the course and participants' real-world experiences, (b) to strengthen awareness of the potential for change, and (c) to facilitate participants' integration of challenge course learning into their post-challenge course lives (Luckner & Nadler, 1995)

Past research has indicated a number of short-term benefits stemming from challenge course participation (Bunting & Donley, 2002) Benefits to the individual include increased self-efficacy, trust self-esteem, leadership skills, and improved temper (Chakravorty et al., 1995; Davis-Berman & Berman, 1993; Hart & Silka, 1994; Robitschek, 1996; Stopha, 1994) clump benefits involve gains in team-building, trust, and cohesiveness (Bronson et al., 1992; Glass & Benshoff, 2002; Priest, 1998)

Challenge course programs are a emblem of adventure education program. Adventure education is based upon the premise that intra- and interpersonal development evolves from participating in activities that necessitate risk-taking and selecting the best way to without fault [i]or[/i] blemish [i]or[/i] flaw an activity in the face of uncertain issues (Ewert, McCormick, & Voight, 2001) It originated with the organized camping move of the 19th century, during which institutes and organizations, such as the Appalachian Mountain cudgel and the Gunnery School, unfolded recreational and educational programs in which individuals participated in organized assemblage experiences in the outdoors (Raiola & O'Keefe 1999) Adventure education advanceed in the early 20th hundred with the influence of experiential educator and theorist John Dewey, who give an inkling ofed that education be an active, involved proces [i]or[/i] part of to the other which learning can be achieved not just by dint of observing or reading about something, on the contrary by doing something with the phenomenon being studied (Hutchings & Wutzdorff, 1988) Dewey posited that by the agency of putting the learner directly in touch with the bring under rule of study, the ensuing experience, followed by dint of reflection on the experience, would proceed in learning (Keeton & Tate, 1978)