Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

“Although they make up only 11 per cent of the population above the age of criminal responsibility (in England and Wales), in 2009, people in this age group were responsible for 17 per cent of all proven offending” (NAO, 2010:5). Sadly, 56 per cent of these young people are likely to re-offend within one year (NAO, 2010). These trends are not unique; they are common to many countries worldwide (e.g. De Gusti et al, 2009). Arguably then, current government strategies that aim to reduce recidivism including custodial sentences, are not working (Clarke, 2011). However, terms such as ‘criminal offence’ and the age criteria for criminal responsibility vary widely in their definitions between and within countries. Furthermore, reasons why young people re-offend emerge from complex and multi-dimensional needs and risk factors, which themselves vary over time. Attempts at correlations and comparisons are therefore inevitably contentious. Interventions perceived as most effective at reducing recidivism focus on multi-systemic approaches to changing behaviours (e.g. DfES, 2006). This research and its findings, contributes towards a better understanding of these multi-dimensional factors. This report presents outcomes from a mixed-methods, ethnographic, comparative research project in relation to a four-day intensive outdoor experiential education programme. For the purposes of this report, the programme is called ‘Bee Inspired’ and is specifically for young people defined as ‘at risk’ of offending or re-offending. Bee Inspired is unique because it involves the participants’ immersion in learning the practical skills of beekeeping. The research was based in three countries: the Azores islands (Portuguese-governed), Prince Edward Island, Canada and England, United Kingdom. During the programme, the participants were observed closely and their behaviour, experiences and comments recorded. Additional data were collected through written questionnaires and focus group sessions during and at the completion of the programme. The outcomes are presented using a method of written ‘vignettes’. This gives voices to the participants, whose perspectives, within research data, are often absent. This report provides evidence of their positive experiences of cognitive, social and emotional development during the Bee Inspired programme; these being intrinsically linked to the programme’s objectives and the researcher’s theoretical and ontological perspectives. The findings were triangulated; qualitative and quantitative data support previous educational research and produces some new insights. The research tracked the progress of the participants twelve and eighteen months after the completion of the Bee Inspired programme. Out of 45 participants, only three participants re-offended within eighteen months; well below average and expected norms as defined in similar research. In addition to the low re-offending rates, many participants continued their beekeeping practices which in itself may contribute to the perceived success of the programme. In conclusion, although small-scale and limited in terms of scope and generalizability, this research illuminates the experiences of young people ‘at risk’ involved in experiential education. The complex and multi-dimensional nature of these experiences relate to individuals’ diverse needs. Further research into experiential education programmes is therefore required, in particular, investigations into why factors specific to beekeeping could provide a way of reducing recidivism amongst some young people at risk.

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

Awareness of the sustainability of our natural resources is a continuing concern. Initiatives promoting environmental adult education (EAE) through professional development (PD) workshops ensure educators' have the knowledge and skills to inform their audience about environmental literacy and stewardship. However, these workshops have rarely been monitored. Specifically, it appears no researchers have focused on the reflective experiences of an EAE PD workshop on educator participants at least 5 years after participation. This basic qualitative study used telephone interviews of 8 past participants to explore whether and how they perceive their behavior changing in relation to natural resources conservation years after the EAE PD, and how they shared these changes with others. Through the contextual lens of EAE with a focus on outdoor experiential learning and transformative learning theories, five major themes emerged including: (a) becoming a more effective educator; (b) becoming more aware of the importance of conservation; (c) experiencing positive emotional effects; (d) changing behaviors that impact the environment; and (e) experiences of the EAE PD location. Implications for positive social change were found in the expressed experiences, content, and application of the EAE PD that ignited new means for approaching curriculum- specific content with a heightened focus on the importance of the conservation of natural resources.