Objective measurement in evaluation of soft skills

Outdoor and adventure education has been associated with developmental outcomes such as personal growth, interpersonal skills and group development (Ewert and Garvey 2007), yet little is understood about the process in which development actually occurs. (Mckenzie, 2000; Sibthorp and Arthur-Banning, 2004)

Individuals often assume they intuitively understand what is meant by the term ‘soft skills’ a term often used to refer to developments in personal growth. This can be supported by Shooter et al. (2009) who suggests the range of ideas regarding this terms meaning across bodies of literature suggests confusion. Butcher et al. (2006) suggest soft skills and outcomes can enhance student success. They bring us on to the topic of objective measurement, and how these ‘soft skills’ can indeed be measured. Butcher suggests ‘soft’ outcomes do not measure success objectively, it is measured according to learners perceptions of progress towards their own and the goals of the adventure program. This view is parallel to my personal philosophy on objective measurement in evaluation of soft skills. My view is one that supports the idea of instruments such as the Life Effectiveness Questionnaire (LEQ) and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), yet their effectiveness is something I readily question.

Personally I feel the confusion surrounding what comes under the term soft skills, along with the diversity in outcomes of outdoor adventure programs, the diversity of types of programs and the differences in individuals places doubt in my mind that a generic instrument can be created to produce individual scores and show change. The current objective measurements in literature measure assessment processes, not developmental changes.

Swiderski (1987), on the other hand suggested soft skills were overlooked, however as outdoor education has gained its own distinguishable texts, hard and soft skills have been well established in literature. Following this, understandably theorists and participants wanted to understand the impact of these programs and the 60’s to 80’s saw a development of instruments in research. Criticised by Neill (in preparation) however, for having a lack of theoretically and psychometrically sound instruments to assess changes in self-perceptions. The 80’s and 90’s therefore saw a range of psychometrically sound instruments produced evaluating programs and theorists currently value their effectiveness.

It would be naïve not to argue the impact of qualitative methods after concluding the development of several objective instruments. Qualitative methods similarly have been successful in understanding outdoor programs, giving an in-depth exploration of participants experiences (Wolfe and Dattilo 2006; 2007). The use of diaries, story telling, field notebooks and observations are highly recognised to understand and reflect on participants change. Personally I feel this method of individual reflection and reports of how these experiences have made participants feel holds the most value in understanding the process of change adventure programs have for personal growth. 

Further reading:

McKenzie, M. D., 2000. How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), pp.19–28.

Sibthorp, J., & Arthur-Banning, S., 2004. Developing life effectiveness through adventure education: The roles of participant expectations, perceptions of empowerment, and learning relevance. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(1), pp.32–50.

References:

Butcher, B., Foster, H.,  Marsden, L., McKibben, J., and Anderson, C., 2006. Soft outcomes universal learning: A practical framework for measuring the progress of informal learning. Summary report RS8716.

Ewert, A., and Garvey, D., 2007. Philosophy and theory of adventure education. In D. Prouty, J. Panicucci, & R. Collinson (Eds.), Adventure education: Theory and applications. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McKenzie, M. D., 2000. How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), pp.19–28.

Neill, J. T., Marsh, H. W., and Richards, G. E., (in preparation). The Life Effectiveness Questionnaire: Development and psychometrics. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Shooter, W., Sibthorp, J., and Paisley, K., 2009. Outdoor leadership skills: a program perspective. Journal of experiential education, 32(1), pp. 1-13.

Sibthorp, J., & Arthur-Banning, S., 2004. Developing life effectiveness through adventure education: The roles of participant expectations, perceptions of empowerment, and learning relevance. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(1), pp.32–50.

Sibthorp, J., 2009. Making a Difference with Experiential Education Research: Quality and Focus. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(3), pp. 456-459.

Swiderski, M., 1987. Soft and conceptual skills: The often overlooked components of outdoor leadership. In G. Robb (Ed.) Proceedings of the Coalition for Education in the Outdoor Research Symposium, Martinsville, IN.

Wolfe, B. D., and Dattilo, J., 2006. Participants’ perceptions related to communication during and after participation in a one-day challenge course program. Journal of Experiential Education, 29, pp.126–144.

Wolfe, B. D., and Dattilo, J., 2007. Perceptions of cooperation and collegiality by participants of a one-day challenge course program. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 7, pp.37–53.