MICHIGAN STATE U NERS m l lI/Ill/l/l’l’llllll’llllllll L Ill/{Ill 3 1293 01020 4521 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled "Factors Influencing Leadership Development In Wilderness Education" presented by Rena' A. Koesler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Park and Recreation degreein Resources DMe November 8, 1994 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty PLACE II RETURN BOXtomwombdnckMMywncord. TO AVOID FINES Mun onetbdonddoduo. ‘ DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1 NOV 09951905 ‘ ‘ ‘ A: h "I” i l _' ‘ ’ M80 IoAn WWW Oppommlly Um Wan-m FACTORS INFLUENCING.LEADERSEIP DEVELOPMENT IN WILDERNESS EDUCATION BY Rent A. Koeeler A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan state University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree at DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department at Park and Recreation Resources 1994 ABSTRACT FACTORS INFLUENCING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN WILDERNESS EDUCATION BY Rent A. Roesler This research identified factors in a wilderness course that contributed to the process of leadership development in wilderness education. The three objectives of the study were to a)assess short and long-term effects of self- efficacy on leadership development, b)eva1uate gender differences in self-efficacy and the leadership development process, and c)propose and evaluate a path model that examined the relationships amongst feedback, goal attainment, mentoring, self-efficacy, and outdoor leadership development. Oral histories were conducted with 19 students who completed a NOLS course within the last 5 years. Questionnaires were adminstered to 231 National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) participants from 1992 and 1993 summer wilderness courses in Wyoming. The questionnaires were administered immediately before (pretest) and after the course (posttest) completion. Anxiety was controlled for by measuring self-efficacy one month prior to testing. A one— year followup questionnaire was mailed to NOLS graduates to assess the long-term effects that NOLS courses have on leadership development. metest results revealed that there were significantly higher self-efficacy scores at posttest than there were at pretest. Self-efficacy scores were significantly higher when controlling for anxiety. Scores also significantly decreased one year after the course, but not to the same level as the pre-course. A path analysis revealed that feedback and mentoring most strongly contributed to students' self-efficacy. Mentoring was the most significant factor for enhancing female self-efficacy. Immediate feedback was the most significant factor for males. Regression analysis revealed a positive, but weak, relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development. Path analysis also showed that the data did not fit the proposed path model of leadership development. The leadership development process was partially supported by self-efficacy and its correlates. Further investigation is needed to better explain the process of leadership development. Because the research revealed that females differ from males in leadership development, additional studies of gender differences are imperative. Particularly for females, anxiety reduction prior to wilderness course participation, could greatly enhance levels of self- efficacy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A pleasureable part of finishing a dissertation is the opportunity to thank those people who have provided ideas, suggestions, editorial comments, encouragement and support along the way. First and foremost, I want to thank NOLS for the opportunity to develop this research to this extent and depth. This research would not have been possible without their financial support or the continued recognition from Del Smith, Jim Ratz, Chris Monz, and Molly Hampton. An extended thanks goes to those instructors and staff members who were willing to work with me during this process. I want to thank my committee members Maureen McDonough, Margot Kurtz and Dan Ferguson for their interest in my research and for the feedback they provided throughout the writing of my dissertation. A special thanks goes to Dennis Propst, my advisor, colleague, and friend. I am most grateful for his belief in me as a successful doctoral candidate, and his unending patience, support and understanding from beginning to end. I also want to thank Judy Johnson and Bette Harris from Longwood College for their administrative guidance and iv mentoring. Their consistency provided me with the energy and encouragement to finish. An acknowledgement cannot be complete without recognizing those fellow graduate students and friends for helping me make this process more manageable. Thank you Gail, Joan, Lora, Fang, Sue, and Julia for the solace and comradery often found at the Peanut Barrel. A special thanks goes to Nancy for her ideas, editorial suggestions, support and encouragement throughout this year. Her time and interest have been invaluable. Last, but never least on my list, is to thank my Dad and the rest of my family for their love, encouragement and pride in my efforts throughout this program. God has blessed me with their support and I am infinitely grateful to them. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OFTABLES O00... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO x LIST OF FIGURES ....... ....... .............. ...... .. xii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 Study Purpose ............................. 3 II. REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP AND RELATED CONCEPTS.. 6 Leadership .............................. 6 Leadership Theories .................. 6 Leadership as a Process .............. 10 Outdoor Leadership ................... 11 Leadership Development ............... 13 Statement of the Problem ................ 17 III. REVIEW OF SELF-EFFICACY LITERATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL MODEL .......... 19 Self-Efficacy ........................... 19 Feedback ............................. 27 Goal Attainment ...................... 28 .Mentoring ............................ 28 Theoretical Model .................... 31 Summary ................................. 34 Research Objectives ..................... 35 IV. PROPOSED PATH MODEL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS OOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 36 Path Model Propositions ................. 39 Research Questions ...................... 40 v O RESEARCH METHODS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 1 Operational Definitions ................. 41 Leadership Development ............... 41 self-Efficacy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 43 FeedDaCR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 44 vi Chapter V (cont'd.). Page Goal Attainment ...................... 45 Mentoring ............................ 45 Study Population ........................ 46 Site and Setting ..................... 46 Sample ............................... 47 Study One: Oral Histories .............. 49 Research Design ...................... 49 Instrumentation ...................... 50 Administration ...................... 50 Data Analysis ....................... 51 Study Two: Effect of NOLS A Course ..... 51 Research Design ...................... 51 Instrumentation ...................... 54 Administration ....................... 55 Control Group ...................... 56 Experimental Groups ................ 56 Data Analysis ........................... 59 Descriptive Statistics .............. 59 T-Test ............................... 59 Path Analysis ........................ 61 ‘VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................... 64 Study One: Oral History Results .......... 64 Study Two: Survey Results ................ 68 Sample Sizes .......................... 68 Demographic Characteristics ........... 69 Goals ................................. 74 Feedback .............................. 76 Mentoring ............................. 80 Involvement ........................... 82 Short-Term Effects ....................... 88 Self-efficacy Magnitude and Strengths . 90 Effect of Anxiety ..................... 91 Summary of Short-Term Effects ......... 92 Long-Term Effects ........................ 93 Gender and Self-Efficacy ................. 95 Scale Reliability ..................... 99 Path Analysis of Leadership Development .. 100 Relationship Between Feedback, Goal Attainment, and Mentoring with Self- Efficacy ............................ 102 Self-Efficacy Path Coefficients ....... 107 Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Leadership Development ............ 117 Summary .................................. 127 Key Findings From Study One ........... 127 Key Findings From Study Two ........... 128 vii x': U» Chapter Page VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... ...... 139 Conclusions From Major Findings ......... 139 Implications For Wilderness Educators ...................... ...... 148 Limitations of the Study ................ 151 Recommendations for Future Research ..... 154 Gone lus ion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOO O O O O O O 1 5 8 LI ST 0F REFRMCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOO O O O O O O 1 s 9 APPENDICES OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 168 HA. Leadership According to NOLS .............. 168 B. History of the National Outdoor Leadership School ...... ..... . ............. 170 C. Oral History Questionnaire ......... . ...... 173 D. Oral History Results ...................... 176 E. Letters and Consent Forms for NOLS students OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 187 F. Pretest and Control Group Questionnaire (1992) ...................... 194 G. Pretest and Control Group Questionnaire (1993) ...................... 198 H. Posttest Time 1 Questionnaire (1992) ...... 203 I. Posttest Time 1 Questionnaire (1993) ...... 206 J. Posttest Time 2 Questionnaire ............. 212 K. Self-Efficacy Histograms for Control and Experimental Groups ................... 219 L. Self-Efficacy Tables L-l. Comparisons Between Control and Experimental Groups in Self-Efficacy For Wilderness TaSks OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 221 L—2. Comparisons Between Posttest Time 1 and Posttest Time 2 Self-Efficacy for Wilderness TaSKS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 223 viii Appendices (cont ' d . ) . Page L-3. L-4 e L-s e L-60 Comparisons Between Female and Male Physical Self-Efficacy in Control, Pretest and Posttest Time 1 Groups .................... 225 Comparisons Between Female and Male Cognitive Self-Efficacy in Control, Pretest and Posttest Time 1 Groups ........ 226 Comparisons Between Female and Male Physical Self-Efficacy in Posttest Time 1 and Posttest Time 2 Groups ......... 227 Comparisons Between Female and Male Cognitive Self-Efficacy in Posttest Time 1 and Posttest Time 2 Groups ......... 228 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Demographic Characteristics of Oral History sample OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 66 2. Sample Sizes of Control and Experimental Groups 1111992 and1993 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 68 3. Demographic Characteristics of Control and Pretest Respondents ............................. 71 4. Course Goals Indicated by NOLS Students ......... 75 5. Degree To Which Students Felt Their Course Goals were Attained (Posttest Time 1 Surveys) ......... 76 6. Types of Feedback, Amount of Feedback, Immediacy of Feedback and Accuracy of Feedback Received by Respondents During Their NOLS Course ..................................... 79 ‘7. Degree and Nature of Mentoring in Posttest Time 1 and Timezsurveys OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 81 8. Likelihood of Participating in Wilderness Education as a Career or Voluntary Activity (Posttest Time 1) ...................... 83 9. Participation in Wilderness Education Activities Before and After NOLS................. 85 .10. Comparisons of Female and Male Participation in Wilderness Education Activities Before and After NOLS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 87 11. Comparisons Between Control, Pretest and Posttest Time 1 Self-Efficacy Means ............. 89 12. Comparisons Between Posttest time 1 and Posttest Time 2 Self-Efficacy Means ............. 94 in ii. Table Page 13. Comparisons Between Control, Pretest and Posttest Time 2 SelfeEfficacy Means ............ 95 14. Comparisons Between Female and Male Self-Efficacy Scores in Control and Experimental Groups ....................... ..... . 97 15. Comparisons Between Female and Male Physical and Cognitive Self-Efficacy Scores in Control and Experimental Groups .............. 98 16. Cronbach Alpha Reliability for Self-Efficacy Scales in Control and Experimental Groups ....... 99 17. Zero-Order Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables With Self-Efficacy in the 1993 Posttest Timelsurvey OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 106 18. Path Analysis of Positive and Immediate Feedback, Mentoring, and Goal Attainment on SBlf’EffiCOCY eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 108 19. Zero-Order Correlation Matrix of the Full Hypothesized Path Model of Leadership Development ..................................... 119 20. Path Analysis of the Full Hypothesized Model of Leadership Development .......... ..... .. 121 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Development of Outdoor Leadership .............. 2. Theoretical Model of Leadership Development .... 3. Path Model of Leadership Development ........... 4. Research Design for Sample Two (Quasi- Experimental, Non-Equivalent Control Group) .... 5. Sequence of Instrument Administration to Control and Experimental Groups OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6. Hypothesized and Proposed, Respecified Path "Odel Of self-Efficacy OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 7. Hypothesized and Proposed, Respecified Path Model of Self-Efficacy for Females OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8. Hypothesized and Proposed, Respecified Path Model of Self-Efficacy for Hales OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 9. Full Hypothesized Path Model of Leadership Development OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 10. Full Hypothesized and Proposed, Respecified Path Model of Leadership Development for Females OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11. Full Hypothesized and Proposed, Respecified Path Model of Leadership Development for males OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page 16 32 37 52 57 110 114 115 122 124 126 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Research related to outdoor adventure programs has been conducted since the 19503 (Ewert, 1989). Much of the research has revolved around three main areas (Ewert, 1989): a)therapeutic dimensions (i.e., people with disabilities, wilderness group therapy), b)individual/group behavior (i.e., reduced drop-out rates, long-term environmental attitudes), and c)psychological well-being (i.e., self- concept, self-esteem, locus of control). To date, research on outdoor adventure leadership has been sparse and inconclusive (Phipps & Swiderski, 1990). Operational definitions of leadership effectiveness are lacking, and the few studies that do exist are confined to less than a handful of master's theses (Easley, 1991). The two experimental research studies relevant to leadership are a thesis by McPeters (1976), which investigated group- centered/leader-centered leadership and another thesis by Baker (1975), who studied changes in leadership behavior in standard wilderness courses at the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS). 2 Wilderness courses in the 0.8. may last as long as 120 days. Given the significant length of field time, there are a multitude of factors that influence individual outcomes on a wilderness course. These outcomes include interacting with the environment with comfort, establishing a philosophy for making choices and decisions, developing a consciousness for self-responsibility, respecting others and the environment, and attaining leadership skills. Although there are a variety of leadership training settings from which to select, many wilderness education programs use the natural environment to develop leadership skills. The length of time in the wilderness, the physical and emotional challenges (carrying heavy packs over rough terrain, stress due to the change in a student's everyday civilized/comfortable routine, etc.), and the interpersonal relationships encountered during a wilderness experience may influence students to develop behaviors and skills that are representative of leadership qualities. Some of these leadership qualities are physical fitness and skills, emotional maturity, patience, tolerance, concern for others, and self-confidence (Ford & Blanchard, 1985). Klint (1990) indicates that research has provided greater understanding into the outcomes of the adventure/wilderness experience, but has revealed little clarification of the process. More specifically, what specific elements of the adventure experience produce which 3 results? How do these results influence future behaviors and outcomes independent of the adventure experience? One of the outcomes that has been investigated as a result of participating in an outdoor adventure or wilderness education program is the attainment of leadership skills. The research that has been conducted discusses the characteristics and behaviors involved in becoming a good leader, but little of the research assesses the components that contribute to the "process" of developing leadership. Many outdoor education authors (Cain, 1991; Ford & Blanchard, 1985; Petzoldt, 1984) articulate the view that leadership is the development of skills, knowledge and experience which contributes to competency and judgment in a variety of situations. Viewing leadership as a long term process underscores the importance of examining the antecedent variables involved in the process. Study Purpose The purpose of this research is to identify those factors in a wilderness course that contribute to leadership development in wilderness education. Leadership development is viewed as a process and the implications are that certain factors on a wilderness course will contribute to the overall process. Furthermore, this research explores the relationships among these factors, and, thus begins to 4 specify the process which leads to long-term leadership development. I At present, researchers have not investigated the theory of self-efficacy as part of the leadership development process. In this study, the theory of self- efficacy will be used to assess its relationship with leadership development. Self-efficacy is expected to contribute to the overall understanding of the process of developing leadership. The factors of feedback (amount and type), mentoring, and goal attainment are proposed to be additional key elements of the process. Feedback and goal attainment are noted as being positive influences on one's self-efficacy, and also components involved in the mentoring process. Therefore, self-efficacy is expected to mediate the influence of feedback, goal attainment, and mentoring on leadership development. The literature review presented supports and interprets the various components of a proposed theoretical model of leadership development. The construct of leadership will be discussed by introducing some of the theories of leadership. leadership will also be defined and discussed in terms of outdoor leadership. Although the discussion of outdoor leadership relates to the general field of outdoor education, the research more specifically centers around wilderness education. This is because the data will be collected from subjects participating in a wilderness 5 program in which most educational activities take place in a wilderness environment. The distinction between wilderness and outdoor education is described in the next chapter. A discussion of the theory of self-efficacy and its determinants will clarify the proposed wilderness leadership developmental process. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP LEADERSHIP AND RELATED CONCEPTS This chapter reviews the literature on leadership and justifies the study problem. An overview of the literature on leadership in general, followed by a synopsis of leadership in outdoor and wilderness settings will provide a framework from which to better understand and express the purpose for selecting the theoretical foundation and independent variables. This chapter concludes with the statement of the problem followed by the study objectives. Leadership MW According to Fairholm (1991), there are as many lists of definitional characteristics of leadership as there are writers on the subject. One of the major problems that underlies leadership research is the ambiguity in definition and measurement of the concept itself (Rosenbach & Taylor, 1984). Due to the many definitions of leadership, it is difficult to agree upon one that is broad enough to encompass all interpretations and specific enough to create 7 a functional guide to operationalizing the concept (Karmel, 1984). Fairholm (1991) states that the three most well-known models of leadership over the past one hundred years are trait theory (who the leader is), behavioral theory (what the leader does), and situational theory (where leadership takes place). Trait theory recognizes leaders with unique personality qualities and character. Although some traits appear to be important for leadership, it is hard to identify common traits. No study reveals one specific trait that is apparent for all leaders. In other words, traits alone do not distinguish leaders from nonleaders. In more recent studies, it was found that some traits can differentiate leaders from followers, effective from ineffective leaders, and successful from unsuccessful leaders (Fairholm, 1991). However, trait theory, as well as other theories fail to explain the variance relative to factors influencing leadership (Stogdill, 1974). The behavior theory of leadership was developed after trait theory because of the ambiguity in identifying leadership through various personality traits. The attempts to observe behaviors was intended to be easier and more operationally useful. However, the focus was still too narrow and it did not consider situational factors (Fairholm, 1991). Although the behavior theory is based on 8 strong theoretical foundations, its ability to predict behavior remains weak. The situational theory of leadership is the most commonly accepted theory today (Fairholm, 1991). Whereas trait theory states that personality traits alone impact leadership effectiveness, situational theory states that it is the situation, in addition to traits, that determine leadership effectiveness. These situations include the location at which leadership occurs and the task requirements. More specifically, situational leadership involves the amount of direction (task behavior) and socio- emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader must provide, given the situation and willingness of her or his followers (Hershey and Blanchard, 1982). In this context ”willingness" refers to personal responsibility for directing one's own behavior. For example, a wilderness experience presents a variety of tasks and experiences that enable a student to develop leadership. Even though a student may not consider her/himself a leader at home or at school, the wilderness environment and tasks involved provide a student the opportunities to develop leadership skills which carry over into other domains. In addition to the three most well-known models of leadership, contingency theory, developed by Fiedler, is closely aligned with situational theory of leadership in that leadership changes with the situation (Fairholm, 1991). 9 Different from the other models, Fiedler places significance on effectiveness. The basic premise is to match the leader's personality with the situation most favorable for her or his success (Fiedler, 1965). Fairholm (1991) and Rosenbach & Taylor (1989) relate that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon the situation and the personality that matches that situation. Fiedler measures effectiveness by three situational conditions; a)leader- member relations (how well the leader is accepted by members), b)task structure (the degree to which follower tasks are programmable), and c)position power (the formal authority the leader holds). He found that task-motivated leaders perform best in situations in which all three factors are either high or low, and conditions are either favorable (leader effectiveness and subordinate motivation are balanced) or unfavorable (leader effectiveness and subordinate motivation are unbalanced). Criticism of Fiedler’s contingency theory centered around the fact that there are certain aspects of the situation or job that are not necessarily dependent on leadership effectiveness. For example, factors such as training, clear job descriptions and intrinsically motivating performance may cancel out the need for leadership (Rosenbach & Taylor, 1989). Researchers have yet to adequately explain the discrepancy in these situational factors (Rosenbach & Taylor, 1989). 10 The four leadership theories just discussed provide an understanding of the history of leadership and attempts to define and operationalize the term. A key consideration lacking in all four theories seems to be the recognition of leadership as a process. c ss There are many definitions of leadership that highlight the relationship between a leader and an individual or group. The term "leadership" is commonly used to describe the act of guiding, or directing others toward a mutual objective (Kraus, 1985). According to Tannenbaum and Massarik (1957), leadership can be defined as: "an interpersonal influence, exercised in situations and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals (p. 91)." Leadership involves communication between people (e.g., mentor and protege) which potentially provides an opportunity for feedback and goal attainment to occur. The key word in this definition is "process," which appears in many leadership definitions, and reflects an integral part of the definition of leadership. The interpretation of the term "process" is that leadership is not something that happens automatically. Rather, through the process of communication, feedback, and goal attainment over time, one 11 can develop a method and style of leadership that is effective and successful for her/him. In respect to developing leadership through a wilderness experience, Klint (1990) suggests assessing the "process" of a wilderness experience first. This will, in turn, lend greater understanding to the results of that experience. Furthermore, the two most supported theories of leadership, situational and contingency theories, both emphasize the need for defining leadership in the context (or situation) in which it occurs. Thus, it is important to focus on a formal wilderness experience that clarifies the leadership process in a wilderness setting. By identifying the specific elements of a wilderness experience that contribute to leadership development over time, a clearer understanding of the process of becoming a wilderness leader should emerge. Win For the purposes of this dissertation, wilderness education is considered a subset of outdoor education. The distinction is that outdoor education encompasses a broader range of education (day camps, park and recreation programs, etc.), whereas wilderness education is limited to those educational experiences related to activities and pursuits located in specific wilderness settings (e.g., mountaineering, rock climbing, backpacking, snow work). 12 Wilderness education most often refers to an expedition style (two or more weeks in the field) of leadership. Although some of the literature refers to outdoor adventure or outdoor education leaders, the data in this study will more specifically pertain to wilderness education leaders. Since much of the difference between outdoor education and wilderness education is a matter of semantics, the results of this research will be relevant for both and the two terms will be used interchangeably. Some researchers suggest that there are a variety of elements in a wilderness/adventure experience that contribute to a participant's effective leadership (i.e., skill performance, motivation, physical fitness, healthy self-concept, personality traits, concern for others, ability to inspire others, and ability to understand participants' needs) (Ford 8 Blanchard, 1985; Priest, 1991). Other researchers contend that judgment and decision-making abilities are primary characteristics of competent outdoor leadership (Cain, 1985; Priest, 1991; Hunt, 1984; McAvoy, 1980; Petzoldt, 1984). Cain and McAvoy (1990) conducted a study assessing the significance of development, evaluation, and documentation on judgment and decision-making abilities in students and practitioners in the field of outdoor leadership. They found that judgment and decision making abilities are evaluated through the process of an instructor/mentor evaluating the student, through written 13 appraisals, and through ongoing, structured, and cumulative feedback by instructors/mentors over a period of time. By allowing for ongoing appraisals, evaluations and feedback, Cain and McAvoy (1990) purport that the mentoring process provides the greatest influence on the potential for students to develop into wilderness education leaders. W While some of the literature discusses theories of leadership and characteristics of a leader (i.e., personality traits, situational factors, behavioral traits), there are some authors who believe that leadership, particularly outdoor leadership, is a continual process of experiences (March, 1987; Green, 1990; Raiola, 1990; Rosenbach 8 Taylor, 1984; Swiderski, 1981). Combining these two lines of research, leadership would be considered a developmental process of experiences in which some of the outcomes are contingent upon personality, situations, and/or behavioral characteristics. In addition to personality, situations and behavior, Raiola (1990) adds that the two essential components to leadership development are training and education. Raiola (1990) further contends that one can gain proper knowledge and skills through continual training and education in outdoor related experiences. Ford and Blanchard (1985) suggest that experience as a participant and as a leader in outdoor pursuits, along with successful l4 completion of courses and workshops in outdoor skills are also important ingredients to competency in outdoor leadership. Green (1990) contends that outdoor leaders should have a grounding in leadership ethics which can be acquired and learned through reading, attending seminars, and networking with other professional outdoor leaders. Training, education, competency and experience lead to good judgment, a factor found to be related to leadership development in a number of studies (Ford 8 Blanchard, 1985; Green, 1990; Raiola, 1990). Judgment is based on acquiring the skills, knowledge, and experience that are necessary for leading a safe and enjoyable outdoor trip (Cain, 1985, Green, 1981, McAvoy, 1980; Petzoldt, 1984; Swiderski, 1981). Developing judgment is also viewed as an ongoing, temporal process. Similar to the concept of leadership, judgment has also been difficult to measure due to the subjective nature of the construct. Cain 8 McAvoy (1990) found the following to be important in the development of judgment: a)experience in a variety of environments and seasons, b)experience under a variety of instructors, c)experience in outdoor related jobs, d)opportunities for students to lead in certain outdoor situations and e)receiving written and formal evaluations of performance. In essence, the literature on outdoor leadership contributes to the overall body of literature on leadership. The outdoor leadership literature acknowledges the 15 significance of personality traits, behavior, and the situation, but places more emphasis on developmental skills (judgment and decision making), mentoring, and ongoing feedback as valuable components of leadership development. This literature supports the idea that leadership is not an end in itself. There are no concrete measures or absolute certainties that an individual has achieved leadership (Miles, 1987). Rather, leadership development is considered an ongoing process which is preceded by certain personality and situational factors. The degree of leadership development is a function of the process which requires active involvement in a variety of outdoor related experiences such as classes, workshops, personal experiences, reading, leadership responsibilities, and past outdoor related jobs (Cain 8 McAvoy, 1990; Ford, 1985; Green, 1990). Active involvement in such experiences leads to better judgment, a prerequisite of effective outdoor leadership (Figure 1). Although leadership theories have continually improved over time, there still remains the dilemma of defining and Operationalizing the term. Leadership may not be a definitive construct with clearly agreed upon measures of success or effectiveness (Rosenbach 8 Taylor, 1989), but the search continues for the latent variables and the process that will increase the probability of an individual becoming an effective leader. The conceptualization in Figure 1 16 ._.Zm:>_n_0..m>wo Q_Iwmmomo .F mmamzm Awnzm... coop—.30 Gz_o>02v_ Adkw .02_x<><¥ .GZ.L2mo a_Iwmmo> Z_ ._.Zm:2n_0._m>mo m_Iwmmo0 mmmDOO mwmzmmodg iv >omo Q.Iwmm0> z. h2m2¢04w>mo Elmmmo0<0_n_u_wum.._mw ._.Zm22_<._.._.< .200 GZEOHZME ¥0<'.=kclimbing, camping and also include memberships in Outdoor organizations, attending workshops and leading 41 42 outdoor/wilderness trips. Leadership is essentially a developmental process which cannot be measured directly. Continued involvement was considered to be an indicator of a progression toward leadership in wilderness education. Individuals were at different stages in the developmental process, and they were identified by the types of activities in which they were involved and their degree of involvement. Consistent with Figure 1, involvement in wilderness education was classified according to a student's knowledge, skills, and experience in wilderness education activities. The measure ranged from no involvement in wilderness education activities to high involvement, contingent on frequency and type of involvement. High involvement was defined as a combination of knowledge, skills, and experience. Knowledge, skills or experience by themselves are insufficient to develop leadership but a balance of all of these will aid in the development of judgment, noted as a key component of outdoor leadership (Cain & McAvoy, 1990; Petzoldt, 1974; Figure 1). Involvement was measured in the following ways. Knowledge was defined in terms of a student's subscription to outdoor] environmental magazines, attending workshops and/or conferences, and memberships in outdoor/environmental Organizations. Skill involvement was defined in terms of Participation in any of the wilderness skills that students 43 were exposed to on their NOLS course (e.g., backpacking, fishing, rockclimbing, map and compass, camping, mountaineering) or additional outdoor skills such as canoeing, skiing, mountain biking, and so on. Sensation seeking sports, such as bunji jumping and sky diving were not defined as outdoor skills. The purpose of participating in these types of activities is not to develop a skill but rather to experience the feeling or sensation that ' accompanies these types of activities (Zuckerman, 1976). Experience was defined in terms of involvement in planning and/or executing an outdoor trip (e.g., with family, friends, or outside groups), developing an outdoor education ;program, or possessing a career or job (volunteer or paid, full or part-time) related to outdoor and wilderness education. These are the behaviors that represent leadership qualities and development. W Based on recommendations in the literature (Bandura, 1986) , self-efficacy was operationalized along two dimensions: magnitude and strength. Magnitude was defined as the total number of up to 20 tasks that the students j‘ldge they would be able to perform. Those students who ixientified 10 items that they perceived they could perform ‘iith some confidence (greater than 0%) on a 20-item scale Would yield an efficacy magnitude (level) of 10. Efficacy 44 strength judgments were obtained by asking the subjects on a percentage scale with 10-unit intervals (10% to 100%) how certain or confident they were in achieving the particular task (e.g., "how certain are you in leading a small group in a wilderness setting?" ... very uncertain to very certain). feedhaek According to the literature, feedback is a variable that has an impact on one's self-efficacy. Feedback is a verbal or written report of the result of any behavior which may reinforce or modify subsequent behavior. Feedback was measured on an ordinal scale in terms of frequency/amount (i.e., 1-5 times, 6-10 times, and 11 or more times per course) and type (i.e., direct and indirect feedback). Direct feedback is when the feedback is directed to a student face-to-face by one or more of the instructors. It is generally conducted with the student at the end of course by one or more of the instructors. Indirect feedback is a response given to a student in a casual or informal manner. It may be given to the student in passing or directed to the entire group with the student present. This response from the instructor may occur after participation in an activity (e.g., "Good job") or in a group when instructors are recapping the days events (e.g. , "All of you kept a neat and ‘tidy campsite"). Students were asked in a four-point Likert scale from ”mostly positive" to "mostly negative" to 45 indicate perceptions of the kind of feedback they received (e.g., "Was the feedback you received mostly positive?" "Was the feedback mostly immediate?"). GoalJttsinmem: According to Bandura (1977), achieving goals raises one's level of self-efficacy. Goals are an end to which one directs her/his energies and motivations to attain an objective. In this study, subjects were asked to identify three goals prior to their NOLS course. After their course, subjects were then asked whether they had attained the goals they had listed prior to their course. Students had the opportunity to look at their pretest questionnaire for the goals which they had identified. M21313 The impact of mentoring on self-efficacy was not cited in Bandura's theory. However, the variables Of feedback and goal attainment are components of a mentoring process. The mentor teaches, guides (i.e., gives important information and advice), sponsors, advises, coaches (i.e., gives feedback and appraisals), supports, and promotes the protege (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992). Based on the descriptions of a mentor, subjects were asked several questions related to the components of mentoring. One dealt with whether any of the instructors were identified as a role model; another whether rt [(1) (n 46 the student confided in any one instructor; and third, whether there was one instructor who provided guidance throughout the course. Other questions related to the presence of a friend, an instructor that she/he trusted, and an instructor who provided encouragement throughout the course. A "yes" to all of these questions signified a mentoring relationship for that student. If a student answered "yes" to any of the questions, this indicated that there was some degree of development toward a mentoring relationship. Study Population W Measurements of preceding variables occurred at students' homes and at the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) Headquarters during the summers of 1992 and 1993. The NOLS headquarters is located in Lander, Wyoming. The Wind River Mountain Range, located west of Lander, is the site of many NOLS wilderness and mountaineering courses. NOLS is one of many wilderness education programs that provide the student with a variety of skills and experiences that can contribute to one’s overall knowledge of the outdoors. NOLS is entering its 29th year of teaching ‘vilderness skills and leadership to an average of 2400 students per year. For more background information about NOLS, see Appendix A a B. 47 Sample There were two samples of the total population of NOLS students. The sample for study 1 was derived from former NOLS participants, who were defined as those who completed a NOLS course 1 to 5 years ago. Study 2 participants were selected from current and potential NOLS students, defined as those who were registered for or who were taking a NOLS course. The purpose for using two different samples was to develop a stronger basis for understanding and interpreting the results as well as assessing the short and long—term effects of a NOLS course. NOLS students were selected for this study because the purpose and mission of the NOLS program is to help the student become the best source and teacher of wilderness skills and leadership. Since leadership development is a primary focus at NOLS, it was appropriate to choose a wilderness education program closely aligned with the purpose of this study. Since feedback and goal attainment are correlates of mentor influence and since it was not feasible to ask instructors to manipulate purposefully the amount and type of feedback they gave (due to the disruption of natural flow of‘the course), it was important to choose participants from (a range of course types which yielded sufficient variability 1x1 feedback to assess its effects. Therefore, students from tnxree types of courses were surveyed: Outdoor Educator's 48 Course (OEC), Wind River Wilderness (WRW), and Wind River Mountaineering (WMT). Due to the nature and independent content of each of the three course types, it is likely that the timing and extent of feedback were quite different. Although NOLS has similar expectations for all three courses, there were some distinct differences between each of the courses being studied. The following paragraph provides a brief distinction between the 3 course types in this study. NOLS expects OEC graduates to be safe, competent, responsible wilderness travelers and leaders, familiar with NOLS' outdoor education techniques and philosophies, and able to supervise novices during a basic wilderness experience. The WRW course graduates are expected to be safe, competent, responsible wilderness travelers and leaders. NOLS expects graduates from the WMT course to be safe, responsible wilderness leaders with conservative judgment and a working knowledge of mountain hazards and mountaineering techniques. Another difference that distinguishes one course from the other is the length of time students spend in the field. Both WRW and WMT courses are 30 days in length whereas OEC courses are 23 days in .1emgth. Although it may seem logical that students on OEC courses may have more experience than students on WRW and “OCT courses, it cannot be assumed that students in OEC course are more experienced. The expectation is to develop 49 leadership skills upon completion of a NOLS course, yet each of these courses has an added component that makes the course content different from the other two. The following section will describe the design, instrumentation and administration of study one. Study One: Oral Histories We Study One was the qualitative portion of this research. Approximately 20 past graduates from OEC, WRW, and WMT NOLS courses were selected and indepth interviews were conducted with each. The oral histories were conducted periodically throughout the summer and fall of 1992. The interviewer intended to obtain an equal representation of students from each type of course in the study. The purpose of the interviews was to gather information about a student’s previous NOLS course experience which provided considerable support for interpreting the results of this study. According to Bauman and Greenberg (1992), qualitative interviewing techniques can also provide valuable insights into attitudes and behaviors that otherwise may be lost through quantitative measures. Indepth interviews can help ‘to»identify relationships between variables of interest. 50 WW Study one measures were conducted through interviews in the summer and fall of 1992. The interview began with demographic information (age, date of course, etc.) followed by a series of open-ended questions pertaining to one's course experience and wilderness education involvement since her/his NOLS course (Appendix C). ' i t 0 Stud One When conducting the oral histories, addresses and phone numbers were retrieved from the NOLS Alumni office. Former students were contacted by phone to inquire about their interest and willingness to be involved in the interview. Whenever possible, a face-to-face interview was conducted. Otherwise, the interviews were conducted.by telephone and all interviews were tape recorded with the consent of the interviewee. Once the former student verbally agreed to participate, a designated time and place (if appropriate) was scheduled that was most convenient for the interviewee. Before the interview began, a statement of consent was either read or handed to the former student to sign attesting to her/his willingness to continue and one’s understanding of the research (Appendix E). The questionnaire took approximately one hour depending upon the depth and extent of the interviewees’ answers. 51 WW2 The results of the oral histories provided support for the interpretation of the relationship(s) between self- efficacy and leadership development since the time of a student's NOLS course. A frequency distribution helped identify the demographic makeup of the sample. The answers to the open ended questions were categorized into similar content and percentages were computed (Appendix D). This information enhanced the understanding and interpretation of the results from study two. Study Two: Effect of a NOLS Course 0 ud A quasi-experimental design was chosen for study two. Subjects included current and potential NOLS students. Due to the field setting, it was impossible to randomly assign subjects to groups or to have complete control of all but one variable. Thus, a purely experimental design was infeasible. Instead, a variation of the quasi-experimental, nonequivalent (nonrandom) pretest-posttest control group design, as defined by Campbell and Stanley (1966), was employed with sample two (Figure 4). In this design, experimental and control groups may be given either a pretest and a posttest or just a pretest or posttest. Individuals were not assigned randomly from some larger population to the control and experimental groups. Instead, 52 EDOEG Jog—.200 ...Zw..<>_30mu202 ...(kszEmmxmiwx‘DOe .O>>._. Mans—<0 m0m 20.wm0 Iom_3m_ooEE: 20805302 P we: «motood . fr 30803332 333“. . o... QDOEG 40mH200\._<._.Zm2_mwaxw .. 0 .0 29:33 0 0 x .0 53 the groups were essentially formed before the study actually began and the groups were similar in a number of characteristics (i.e., NOLS student, similar wilderness environment(s), similar wilderness activities, and exposed to NOLS core curriculum). The one variation from the typical pretest-posttest design was that there was no posttest measure of the control group. This was due to lack of funds and time constraints of the study grant. The limitation imposed by this variation is discussed in the concluding chapter. The control group consisted of a selection of students from each type of course who were scheduled to participate in a NOLS course later on in the summer. The purpose of the control group was to control for extraneous variables that were likely to impact the pre-measured scores. In particular, Koepke (1973) reported that just before the start of a course, students experience a high anxiety level which may create biases in the pretest measures. To increase validity and account for this bias, the pretest instrument only was administered by mail to the control group of registered students before they arrived in Wyoming. The pretest experimental group (0“) consisted of students already in Lander waiting to depart for a NOLS course. The treatment (X) was the actual NOLS course. The posttest time 1 experimental group (0") consisted of students who had completed their NOLS course. Surveys were 54 administered to students immediately after they returned from their course. The posttest time 2 experimental group (0”) consisted of students who participated in the posttest time 1 survey instrument. The posttest time 2 survey was administered to students one year after their NOLS course through a mailback survey questionnaire (See Figure 4). WW Study two data consisted of information from a pretest questionnaire and two posttest questionnaires. The pretest questionnaire was designed to collect sociodemographic information from the student and to have each student identify three (3) goals they wished to accomplish on their NOLS course (Appendices F & G). The primary purpose of the posttest time 1 (Appendices H a I) survey was to measure each of the factors in the research questions (goal attainment, feedback, and mentoring). The primary purpose of the posttest time 2 survey was to determine the degree of participation in wilderness education activities one year after a student's course (Appendix J). The self-efficacy scale, modeled after Bandura’s format for measuring self-efficacy (1977a), was included in both control and experimental group instruments. The scale reflected judgments that measure both magnitude (level) and strength. The self-efficacy scale included 20 items: the first 10 items were designated as physical skills and the 55 second 10 items were designated as cognitive skills, all of which were organized by tasks of graduated difficulty. Self-efficacy leyel was measured by the total number of tasks greater than 0% that a student perceived she/he could accomplish. Percentage or confidence ratings were summed and divided by the total number of items to create a measure of sttength of self-efficacy. For example, a total confidence score of 600% for 10 items on a 20-item scale would yield an efficacy level of 10 and a strength of efficacy of 600/20 = 30. The higher the number the stronger the self-efficacy (McAuley & Gill, 1983). There is evidence to suggest (Warren, 1990) that males feel more efficacious about activities that involve strength (physical skills) and spatial ability (cognitive skills). However, there are some researchers who would argue that women and men are equally matched in their cognitive abilities (Matlin, 1987). To substantiate these findings, ratings of both physical and cognitive skills were included in the self-efficacy scale. agmjnjgtrgtign Q: Stgdy Two A total sample of 231 students from each of the three course types (i.e., OEC, WRW, WMT)) were selected and administered pretest and posttest instruments. These courses were not selected randomly. The basis for selecting these course types was presented earlier in this chapter. l N 5 ... be fliffe ‘ D 116 501 S‘. 56 The choice of particular offerings of these three course types was based on convenience. To enhance the validity of the questionnaires, the pretest and posttest questionnaires were administered to 2 different courses that were not selected for this study. The reason for this was to provide a pilot test of the questionnaire for the purposes of eliminating or rewording questions, modifying instructions for greater clarity, and changing administration procedures, if necessary. This trial was conducted in the early part of the summer of 1992 so there was time enough to make changes based on problems with the pilot test instrument before the formal testing began. The revised instruments were administered to the control group and the 3 experimental groups at four different times over the course of a year (Figure 5). ggntro; Gtoup, Pretest instruments mailed to students at least 1 month before the start of their course provided a control sample of 86 students. Control subjects were not the same NOLS students as those administered the pretests/posttests. Expetimentgl Gtogps. In 2 successive years, the instrument was administered to the experimental group at 3 different times: pretest, 57 mmDOIO ._<._.Zw$:mmexm oz< Jog—.200 0... 20_.—. C wahhmoa AwwIDOO m1... Amwm—DOO mIP mmku< >Jm.r(_0m22: mmOmmm >n_m.—.<_Dm22: I PmmHFwOn. wahmmn— AwmeOO m1... mmOumm 2.3.202 m 0... S QDOEG JON—H200 58 posttest time 1 and posttest time 2 (Figure 5). The experimental group was given the instrument the first day of the course (pretest), the last day of the course (posttest time 1) and 1 year later (posttest time 2) to assess the long-term effects of self-efficacy. Individuals in these groups were the same throughout the pretest/posttest sequence. At each point of the administration of the questionnaire, a consent form was either read to the students (i.e., pretest and posttest time 1) or mailed to them as part of the cover letter enclosed with the questionnaire (i.e., control group and posttest time 2). The intent of consent forms was to ensure that each student was aware of the general purpose of the research. The form stated that their participation in the research was voluntary and reflected their actual consent. Students in the pretest and posttest time 1 surveys were currently participating in a NOLS wilderness course conducted by NOLS instructors. The approximate time it took students to complete the questionnaire was about 15 minutes. Those same students were then mailed the same instrument (posttest time 2) one year later. Dillman’s (1978) Total Design Method (TDM) was the method employed in the followup survey with a few modifications. The TDM begins with an initial mailing, then a postcard reminder sent one week later, followed by a third mailing with a replacement survey sent 2 weeks after the 59 postcard. This third mailing is sent by certified mail. In this study, there were three mailings sent approximately 2 to 3 weeks apart. With each mailing, a survey was sent along with a letter reminding the perspective NOLS student of the purpose of the study and the importance of completing the survey. Data Analysis D i ll 5! !i !° The statistical package used to perform the following analyses was SPSSPC+ (Norusis, 1988). The first level of analysis conducted was descriptive statistics for the sample including age, gender, experience level, educational background, geographical location and occupation. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was computed for the control, pretest, posttest time 1 and posttest time 2 self-efficacy scales to determine the internal consistency (reliability) of the components being measured in the scale. O - 6 To measure the short-term and long-term effects of a wilderness course on self-efficacy (research questions 1 & 2), control and experimental groups were compared. An assessment of the distribution of the data helped to determine the appropriate test (parametric vs. non- parametric) used to compare self-efficacy means between 60 control and experimental groups. The decision was based upon the normality of the distribution (samples drawn from populations are normally distributed), and the homogeneity of the variance (variances in the study populations are equal) (Shavelson, 1988). Upon discovering that normality (see Appendix K) and homogeneity assumptions were not violated (given the visual inspection of the distributions were similar), a MANOVA tested the following hypothesis: H control = iTo = §T1 = RTZ. ANOVA is not sensitive to violations of the assumption of homogeneity of variances. ”As long as the assumption of normality is defensible, the use of tests for the homogeneity assumption is reasonable" (Shavelson, 1988). The MANOVA procedure in SPSSPC+ was chosen over the ONE-WAY AVOVA procedure. In SPSS, one-way ANOVA does not allow for repeated measures of the same dependent variable for the same individual across time; MANOVA does. After testing for overall an effect via MANOVA, paired t-tests determined more specific differences. The difference between independent sample t-tests and paired sample t-tests is that independent t-tests identify mean differences in a given variable independent of control or experimental groups (e.g., course type - 1,2,3). A paired sample t-test is a statistic for cases that are related and one value is compared with another (e.g., comparing a particular self-efficacy task with another self-efficacy 61 task) (Norusis, 1988). For example, when comparing differences in means between self-efficacy scores across control and experimental groups, a paired t-test was performed. When comparing self-efficacy means between each course type or between genders, the independent sample t- test subcommand was used. The analyses used to address research question 3 will be discussed in the following paragraphs. W To determine the influence of feedback, goal attainment and mentoring on self-efficacy and to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development (research questions 4 a 5), path analysis was performed. Path analysis is a method applied to a theoretical causal model to determine the direction of cause and effect. It does not discover the cause but rather investigates the potential for cause and helps to interpret causal relations (Pedhazur, 1982). Path analysis involves 2 or more regression equations producing beta weights which help to specify causal relationships among variables. The term path analysis was used in this study to refer to the technique used to test whether the hypothesized model sufficiently fit the data by comparing the observed data with the predicted data. Multiple regression analysis was the statistical approach or method used to obtain path 62 coefficients between variables in the model. The path coefficients (standardized beta weights), reveal both the relative strength of association between variables and the direction of influence (Agresti & Finley, 1986). Pedhazur (1982) reports, "For each independent variable in the equation there is a path coefficient indicating the amount of expected change in the dependent variable as a result of a unit of change in the independent variable." In other words, as independent variable (X) changes then the dependent variable (Y) is expected to change to that degree as well. If the path coefficient between x and Y variables is relatively strong (.50 and above), then it can be concluded that X has a strong effect on Y and that the result of Y was influenced by X (Pedhazur, 1982). The linkages and overall design of the path model were formulated, a priori, from careful review of the literature and well established theories. There are five assumptions that underlie the application of path analysis. They are: a)the relations among the variables in the model are linear, additive, and causal; b)residual variables are uncorrelated; c)there is one-way causal flow (nonrecursive); d)variables are measured on an interval scale; and e)variables are measured without error. In this study, the path model was linear in that the values in the independent variables (X) affected the dependent variable (Y), therefore, affecting the path coefficients between them. More specifically, for 63 "each unit of change of the independent variable, X, there is an expected change equal to the size of the path coefficient in the dependent variable, Y" (Pedhazur, 1982). It was assumed that residual variables were uncorrelated and that variables were measured on an interval scale. Those variables that did not depict an interval scale were changed to a dummy coding scheme to have a more reliable measure. Dummy coding is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The model that was tested was recursive; that is, it depicted a one-way causal flow. Error is always present; its degree and extent will be discussed in Chapter 7. Figure 3 is the path model under investigation in this study. Once the hypothesized model is in place, the next two steps in the path analysis process are to conduct the regression analysis revealing the path coefficients and to evaluate the full model. Evaluation consisted of eliminating paths and recalculating path coefficients for new models (Agresti & Finley, 1986). CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The first section of this chapter will provide the results of the oral histories conducted in the summer and fall of 1992. Following the oral histories, the chapter will present results and provide discussion related to the five research questions of this study. They are: a)Does self-efficacy increase immediately after the completion of a wilderness course; b)Does the increase in self-efficacy persist over time; c)Are there differences between female and male self-efficacy scores; d)Do higher levels of feedback, goal attainment and mentoring show a positive relation with self-efficacy; and e)Is there a positive relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development? These five questions dictate the organization and flow of this chapter. A summary of the results will close this chapter. 1 Study One Oral History Results With the exception of three interviews, the oral histories were obtained by telephone. The three exceptions 64 65 were face-to-face interviews conducted in Virginia, Michigan and Wyoming where the interviewer was present. The purpose of the oral histories was to provide richer and more indepth information to support the quantitative findings in this research as well as investigate the long term impacts of a NOLS course on students. Appendix C provides a list of the questions asked during the interview followed by the detailed results of those questions. Demographic information about the oral histories is contained in Table 1. The detailed content of the interviews is provided in Apepndix D. The interviews revealed that the most common reasons for taking a NOLS course were to learn about the outdoors and the proper way to "conduct oneself in the wilderness", become proficient at outdoor and technical skills, develop skills needed for future jobs, and learn to become an effective teacher (Appendix D). Other reasons for participating in NOLS were to meet people, be in the mountains for 30 days, and face challenges. By far, the most common reasons were related to learning and developing outdoor and wilderness skills. All 19 students continued their involvement in wilderness skills and wilderness education activities since their NOLS course. The most frequented activities were backpacking, camping, snow skiing and mountain biking. The activities that were least or never pursued since their NOLS 66 Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Oral History Sample. ORAL HISTORIES (n=19) Survey Item Result PCT. GENDER Female 10 53% Male 9 47% AGE Range 21-48 years Average 28 yrs. EXPERIENCE LEVEL BEFORE TAKING NOLS ‘ Introductory 1 5% Development 14 ' 74% Commitment 4 21% COURSE TYPE ” OEC 7 36% WRW 6 32% qu 6 32% YEAR STUDENT TOOK NOLS COURSE 1987 4 21% 1988 6 32% 1989 2 10% 1990 0 0% 1991 7 37% NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS BY GENDER (19 different courses with 3 instructors/course) Female 20 35% Male 37 65% ‘ introductory: Participants have little or not experience with outdoor adventure activities. Developsontal: Participants have some previous experience in outdoor adventure activities. Commitment: Participants have high level slills, experience and commitment to outdoor adventure activities. ' mtdoor Buster's Course (OEC) Hind River Wilderness (HRH) Hind River Momtaineering (ill!) course were mountaineering, snow work, rafting and kayaking. Rock climbing, canoeing and fishing were activities in which students revealed some, but not frequent, participation since their course. 67 Fifteen out of the 19 students (79%) belonged to either an outdoor/environmental related organization or subscribed to a magazine related to the outdoors. Some of these memberships, such as the Boy Scouts and Sierra Club, involved participation in outdoor adventure activities which implies that these opportunities provided for further development in skills, knowledge and experience after NOLS. Eight out of the 19 students (42%) believed that their continued involvement in outdoor organizations, outdoor magazine subscriptions, and skills was a result of the NOLS experience. Students stated that NOLS added to their interest, participation, comfort level and commitment to the outdoors. For three of the students, NOLS provided the basis for getting jobs in the future (e.g., outdoor education teacher, summer camp job, outdoor club). Eighteen out of the 19 students (95%) stated that they would participate in NOLS again. However, money and time were the two strongest reasons that kept them from participating. Overall, the NOLS experience appeared to be a very positive and worthwhile experience for all students who were interviewed. There is indication (42% of students) that the NOLS course influenced subsequent involvement in wilderness education activities, but not necessarily as leaders. Furthermore, this influence seems to persist over time and the impacts for these students remain strong and still 68 relatively fresh as they expressed and recounted their experiences. The remaining results of the oral histories pertain to feedback and mentoring. These results will be discussed later in the chapter under "Study Two." Study Two Demographic Characteristics and Descriptive Results From Surveys This section describes the characteristics of persons who were involved in the 1992 and 1993 control groups, the on-site pretests, the on-site posttest time 1 surveys and the mailback posttest time 2 surveys. The purpose of this section is: 1)to provide background information on the 'sample involved in the study, and 2)to assess the relationship between antecedent variables (i.e., age, educational level and experience level), self-efficacy, and leadership development. mazes The sample sizes derived from the two years of data collection are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Sample Sizes of Control and Experimental Groups in 1992 and 1993. Year Control Pretest Posttest Posttest Time 1 Time 2 1992 n=30 n= 86 n= 85 n=66 1993 n=56 n=145 n=109 Response Rate TOTAL n=86 n=231 n=194 78% (66/85) 69 The discrepancy in sample size between posttest time 1 (1993) and the pretest (1993) was due to an unusually high number of student evacuations throughout the summer. Also, one course did not receive a posttest time 1 survey. Funding limitations imposed by the ending date of the research grant prevented a posttest time 2 survey in 1993. The data analyzed in this chapter reflects a merging of the two years of data collection to provide more statistical power to the research. According to Keppel & Zedeck (1989), the most common way to increase the power of a statistical analysis, is to increase sample size, thus, enhancing the overall power of the statistical tests. The sample size (posttest time 2) reflects the return responses from the 1992 posttest time 1 sample. Sixty-six out of 85 students returned the questionnaires: a 78% response rate. This relatively high response rate may be a reflection of the student's interest in the topic in addition to the impact developed from the followup reminders. There were three separate mailings (mailed every 2 weeks) with about 59% of the responses returned after the second mailing. BMW Participants in the control group were a different sample from the experimental group (pretest, posttest time 1 and posttest time 2). The same individuals sampled in the 70 pretest, except for those who dropped out, were also administered the posttest time 1 and posttest time 2 instruments. Nearly half of the students that participated in the control group and experimental group were female (Table 3). The average age in the control group was 24 and the average age in the pretest group was 22. The data further indicate that 32% of the control group and 37% of the experimental group completed high school. Forty-seven percent of students in the control group and 37% in the pretest group were pursuing some advanced degree beyond high school. A fairly large percentage of students in both the control group (87%) and pretest group (86%) indicated having some previous outdoor experience before attending NOLS. Thirteen percent of the students in the control group and 14% of students in the pretest group indicated having very little or no outdoor experience before coming to NOLS. Fifty-six out of 86 (65%) in the control group and 155 out of 231 students (67%) in the experimental group described themselves as full-time students. The full-time college students represented a variety of academic disciplines. Twenty-three percent from the control group and approximately 32% percent of students from the experimental group indicated majors in the natural and social sciences. 71 Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Control and Pretest Group Respondents. Survey item Control Crow PCT. Pretest Grow PCT. ("’86) (n=231) GENDER Peale 40 47% 102 1.4: hale 4S 2;; 129 56.: 1002 1001 AGE RANGE 16-38yrs. 15-51yrs. Average Age 26 yrs. 22 yrs. EDNA?!“ WLETED Elementary sch. 1 .42 Jmior Him 18 21% 60 26% Senior high 27 32% 85 37! Associate 2 2% 3 it Bachelor's 26 31% S6 23% Graduate 12 M 26 B! 100% 99.41 EXPER. LEVEL' Introductory 11 13: 33 14: Developent 62 73% 177 77! Conitment 12 1131 20 9_7, 100% 1003 causes maca' .06., ”no Ede. Exper. Ed. 5 9% 10 6% Natural Sci. 8 11.: 30 191 Social Sci. 5 9% 20 13! Eng/Lang. 1 2% 9 6x lluaanities lo 7% 9 68 health, medical 7 13% 4 3: Other 9 16A 21 13! lo "10" L7 m 23 193 Total Full tiae 56 65% 155 67! students (56/861 (155/231) 'introductory: Participants have little or no experience with outdoor adventure activities. Developmental: Participants have some previous experience in outdoor adventure activities. Commitment: Participants have high level skills, experience and comitment to outdoor adventure activit es. ”Natural Science (biology, science, forestry, geology, geography, etc.) Social Sciences (sociology, psychology, history) "annuities (ecommics, philosophy, political science) Other (Minus, law, engineering, etc.) (Continued on next page) 72 Table 3 (cont'd.). Survey items Control PCT. Pretest Grow PCT. Group (n=231) (n=86) FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT 45 54% 74 32% Occlsaetionsc -Teacher 14 31% 39 35% -Outdoor Related 6 14% 17 15% '5“. Services 2 4% 6 5% «man Services 3 7% 4 3% -liealth, medical 2 4% 6 5% -Transiti on 9 20% 7 6% -Other 9 m 34 m 100% 100% course rvps‘ (EC 26 30% 64 28% Haw 37 43% 94 41% W 23 as n 3.1.: 99% 100% REGIQI OF CMTRY Pacific NH 6 7% 24 10% Rocky Holntai n 6 7: 13 6% Southwest 4 5% 9 4% )1th 14 18% 35 15% South 22 28% 59 26% Hidatlantic 9 11% 42 18% low England 18 g}; 40 17% Alaska 0 99% 1 .0% Hawaii 0 1 .0% Outside 0.5. o 'Echcatfinal ServTces (elployment within an educational institution such as student activities, school comselor, etc.) lit-In Services (day care center, rehabilitation center, medical profession). Transition (in between school and job, change in career/life goals). Other (business, advertisement, law, engineering, politics). Occupation includes both part-time and full-time emloyment. Although full-time wlwt and full-time students add in to be more than the suple size in the control group (111 vs. 86), this result may indicate that either students are both full-time enployed and full-time students or the)’ misread the question indicating "full-time." ‘Outdoor Ednator's Course (OEC) Hind River wilderness (HRH) wind River huntaineering (HIT) NOTE: All colm do not total to 100% due to missing values. (Ehe.remaining students indicated majors in the humanities, lmusiness, law, medicine, physical education, recreation, and experiential education . Forty-five out of 86 students in the control group (54%) and 74 out of 231 students in the experimental group (32%) were employed full-time. Thirty-one percent of 73 persons employed in the control group and 15% of persons employed in the experimental group were from the teaching profession. Six out of 86 (14%) students in the control group and 17 out of 231 (15%) students in the experimental group were employed in an outdoor-related profession (camp, outdoor agency, forestry, park department, etc.). Nine out of the 86 persons (20%) in the control group and 7 out of the 231 (6%) persons employed in the experimental group were in transition. "Transition" students were either between school and job, exploring new avenues in career/life pursuits, or travelling around the country. A large percentage of students involved in the study were enrolled in the Wind River Wilderness (WRW) courses: 43% in control group and 41% in the experimental group. The WRW courses are the standard wilderness courses and generally more heavily filled than either the Outdoor Educator's courses (OEC) or the Wind River Mountaineering courses (WMT). The OEC courses are generally limited to 12 persons per course and generally attract people with some previous experience in outdoor education. The WMT courses tend to be more technical in nature (e.g., mountaineering, snow work, more rock climbing) which may attract people with more experience therefore limiting the numbers of people enrolled in those courses. Many of the participants in this study came from the Southern, Midatlantic and New England regions of the 74 country: 62% from the control group and 61% from the experimental group. As can be shown in Table 3, there are some distinct similarities between control group and experimental groups in all variables. The only exception appears to have been the difference in employment percentage. This may have been a result of respondents not understanding the question about employment. §2§l§ Table 4 displays the categorization of goals students selected before their course. The most common goals that students indicated on their pretest instrument were developing leadership and judgment, learning technical skills (e.g., rock climbing, mountaineering) and improving personal self (e.g., getting in shape, developing confidence and self-esteem, getting to know oneself better, ability to get along with others). This may have been due to the result of students finding leadership and technical skills more tangibly gained and noticed by others. It also may seem more appropriate to list goals that are reflective of the mission and goals of NOLS (i.e., leadership, judgment, skills). Both control and experimental groups were exposed to and aware of the mission of NOLS before registering for a course. An average of 24% of students in the control and experimental groups indicated fun and enjoyment as a goal. 75 Table 4. Course Goals Indicated by NOLS Students. Goal Item Control Pretest Group Group (n=86) PCT. (n=231) PCT. Leadership and Judgment 42 49% 130 56% Technical Skills 65 76% 163 71% Minimum Impact Techniques 16 19% 35 15% , Teaching Strategies 9 11% 18 8% Personal' 66 78% 169 73% Natural History” 12 14% 57 25% Fun and Enjoyment 29 22% 59 26% Other‘ 4 5% 31 13% 'Pfersonal (get in shape, get to know one self, etc.) . ‘Natural History (wildlife, plants, geology, etc.). ‘Other (future career, enhance resume). In posttest time 1 instrument, students were given the opportunity to look at the goals they had written prior to the start of their course (pretest) and asked to assess the degree to which their goals had been achieved. Most of the goals the students selected at the beginning of the course were achieved (96% in Table 5) . Out of the 194 participants who answered the open-ended question asking subjects to explain why or why not they thought their goals were achieved (Appendix I, question #2) , 32% of the participants indicated that their goals were met beyond their expectations. Only 6% of the students had doubts about meeting the goals they had selected. 76 Table 5. Degree to Which Students Felt Their Course Goals Were Attained (Posttest Time 1 Surveys). Survey Item Posttest Time 1 Group(n=194) PCT. Goal Attainment: Yes 180 96% Goals met 55 32% beyond expectations Goals were 106 62% met Goals were 10 6% somewhat met No 7 4% NOTE: 7 cases had missing values. feedback Research indicates that feedback is a critical determinant of self-efficacy. Feedback is most instrumental when the feedback is positive, immediate, and accurate (Rink, 1985). A large percentage of the students (84%) in the oral histories claimed that they relied on feedback to guide their performance (Appendix D). Feedback was particularly important from instructors and a combination of both instructors and peers. One student said she/he particularly relied upon feedback in areas where she/he did not have a great deal of experience. Another student responded with a "not really" because she/he came into the course with more experience than many other students on her/his course. This may imply that students with more experience rely less on feedback than those students with 77 less experience. As indicated in the demographic information, a small percentage (14%) of students indicated having a great deal of experience when coming to NOLS. Thus, the remaining students (86%) would be more inclined to expect and depend on feedback to guide their performance. Among the Study Two sample, students responded with relatively high percentages of positive, accurate, and immediate feedback. In Table 6, 57% of the feedback received from instructors was indicated as mostly positive. Approximately 34% of the students perceived the feedback to be somewhat positive and 3 people perceived feedback to be somewhat negative (3%). Thirty-eight percent of students indicated that the feedback received was mostly immediate and nearly half of the students (49%) indicated that the feedback was somewhat immediate. Thirteen percent of students revealed that the feedback they received from instructors was somewhat or mostly delayed. Over 90% of the feedback received throughout the course and on written evaluations at the end of the course was perceived as accurate. From the oral histories, some of the reasons why students did not find the feedback to be accurate was due to the instructor incongruity of evaluating a behavior that was not observed. One common example given by students was the absence of instructors on group hikes during the day to witness decision making and judgment. Another example was the absence of instructors around tent 78 and cooking groups when evaluating and observing expedition behavior and/or how well a student practiced minimum impact camping techniques. Ninety-two percent of the students indicated receiving direct feedback from instructors and 95% of students indicated receiving indirect feedback from instructors. Over 50% felt that direct and indirect feedback was received from both female and male instructors. For the remaining students, around one-third reported feedback from males only. The higher proportion of feedback received from males may be a reflection of the number of male instructors on the courses. Out of a total of 75 instructors, 14 were female instructors (19%) and the remaining 61 (81%) were male. Six out of the 14 female instructors were course leaders (CL's) and the second year consisted of a higher percentage of female instructors than in 1992 (27% vs. 22%). Thirty-six percent of the students in the oral histories indicated that it really did not matter who they received instructor feedback from (See Appendix D). Two students mentioned that they paid particularly close attention to the course leader (CL-head instructor) when listening to feedback, regardless of gender. One particular student mentioned that the feedback "would have meant more from someone she/he had connected with." Another student 79 Table 6. Types of Femck, Amomt of Feedaack, Immdiacy of Feecback, and Accuracy of Feedback Received by Respondents During their NOLS Course. Survey item Posttest time 1 (n8109) PCT. "Itii’ '“fi’i‘” .2 57: s: ve Somewhat-”positive 37 34% Somewhat negative 7 6% Neatly negative 3 3% lies the verbal femck: Nostl imaediate 42 38% S at immediate 53 49% Somedut delayed 13 12% Nostly delayed 1 1% N? feedaack throughout course accurate? es No 95 89% ‘ 11 10% N?" final written evaluations from instructor accurate? es No 95 87% 9 8% Did you receive dir feecback from instructors throughout course Yes 100 92% Female 15 14% hale 34 31% Both 56 51% No 8 7% Did receive iggjrgc; fee¢ack from instructors throlyaghguout course Yes 103 95% Female 6 hale 38 35% Both 59 54% No 5 5% Amomt of girggt feecback received: - 1-5 times 45 41% 6-10 times 34 31% 11 or more times 24 Amomt of igirgg feecback received: 1-5 times 29 27% 6-10 times 33 30% 42 393 NOTE: Colums may not add to 100Tdue to missing values or students responding to more than one tem. ‘ Direct “mob-Directed face-to-face by one or more instructors. It is purposeful, planned, and . usually carefully thought out. . Indirect feedaeckuA response given in a casual or informal manner. It may be given in passing or directed to the entire grow. did not particularly care who provided the feedback as long as it was positive. Students also indicated receiving more indirect feedback as opposed to direct feedback. Thirty-nine percent reported receiving indirect feedback eleven or more times; 22% reported receiving direct feedback eleven or more times. 80 This is likely due to the time involved in planning and preparing direct feedback so that it is carefully thought out and executed. Secondly, it would take an enormous amount of time to provide carefully thought out, face-to- face feedback to each member of a group (average of 14 per group). For all courses, direct feedback is given to all students at the end of the course by instructors. For some courses, at the discretion of the instructor(s), direct feedback is provided by instructors at mid-course and potentially at another time throughout the course. neutering Table 7 summarizes the results related to the independent variable of mentoring. The literature indicates that guidance, confiding in another person, trust, friendship, providing encouragement, and role modeling are important factors in developing a mentoring relationship (Beeler, 1988; Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1991). A personal relationship exists between a mentor and a protege, whereas a person can be a role model without developing a personal relationship (Jeruchim and Shapiro, 1991). The difference between a role model and a mentor is that a role model is part of a mentoring relationship. Questions 11-18 in the posttest time 1 questionnaire (Appendix I) defined the mentoring variable. Students felt less able to find an instructor with whom to confide in and £31 Table 7. Degree and Nature of Mentoring Variable in Posttest Time 1 and Time 2 Surveys.‘ Survey item Posttest time Posttest time 1 (na109i‘ PCT. 2 (n=66) pc1_ Neet one-on-one with instructor: Yes 97 89% 63 96% No 12 11% 3 4% One instructor provide guidance: Yes 72 66% 52 Female 27 38% 10 19% hale 44 61% 40 77% No 37 34% 14 21% One instructor to confide in: Yes 52 8% 35 53% Female 18 35% 7 20% Male 33 63% 28 80% No 56 2% 3O 46% One instructor serving as role model: Yes 72 66% 50 76% Female 26 34% 13 26% Nale 45 61% 36 72% No 36 33% 16 24% One instructor to trust: Yes 47 43% 32 9% Female 14 29% 4 13% Male 33 70% 26 81% No 61 56% 33 0% One instructor as a friend: Yes 65 60% 40 61% Female 15 23% 8 20% Nale 47 72% 3O 75% No 42 39% 25 38% One instructor offered encouragement: Yes 76 70% 43 65% Female 24 32% 5 12% Male 47 62% 34 79% No 32 29% 20 30% Are you identifying with same instructor throyghout all your answers above? Yes 52 48% 24 36% 44 40% 34 52% Percentages may not add to 100%Tdue to missing values. 1993 data only - 1992 data excluded because mentoring items were found to be unsatisfactory and replaced in 1993 with more appropriate and longer set of items. ' The percentage of students who dld not identify with the same instructor i lies that they received different mentoring characteristics from more than one Instructor. trust than an instructor who provided guidance and encouragement (Table 7). identified an instructor as a friend and a role model. Over half of the students Nearly half of the students (48%) identified with the same instructor (question 18) which reveals, according to the operational definition for this study, that there may have been a mentoring relationship present for those students. 82 It appears that there were considerably higher percentages of male instructors providing the mentoring versus the female instructors. This is likely a reflection of the percentage of female instructors (19%) as opposed to male instructors (81%). Both female and male students may have selected a male instructor as a mentor because that may have been their only choice. These results may differ given balanced percentages of female and male instructors. The posttest time 2 sample pertains to the 1992 data collection period only (n=66). The 1993 data collection in posttest time 1 was used to measure mentoring because of the increase in the number of factors measuring mentoring. The reasons for this change in how mentoring was measured are explained on page 103. Since there were more female instructors the second year of data collection (1993), this may explain why there are higher percentages of students identifying a female instructor as a friend and role model versus in the posttest time 1 mentoring results. Inxelxenent Table 8 illustrates that 86% of the students envisioned themselves extremely likely to participate in adventure/wilderness activities in the future. As can be shown in posttest time 2, this anticipated percentage remained the same over the course of a year. Some of these activities pertained to the kinds of activities that ilbi st'. cl: We} C01 as] dC‘ Pl: 0111 P05 in: to Per “hi 83 Table 8. Likelihood of Respondents Participating in Wilderness Education as a Career or Volmtary Activity. Survey item Posttest Posttest Time 1 Time 2 (n=194) PCT. (n=66) PCT. Future participation in adventure activities: Extremely likely 168 86% 57 86% Mat likely 17 9% 8 12% Someidiat mlikely 6 3% O 0% Extremely mlikely 3 2% 1 2% Future participation in career related to outdoor adventure: Extruely likely 38 21% 22 33% Somewhu likely 66 35% 23 35% Somediat mlikely 45 24% 13 20% Extremely mlikely 37 20% 8 12% students experienced on their NOLS course (e.g., rock climbing, backpacking, rappelling), while other activities were characterized as outdoor activities outside of the NOLS course, but still can be considered adventure activities (e.g., skiing, mountain biking, canoeing). Students were asked to report their participation in any adventure activity whether it was NOLS related or not. Overall, students indicated a 56% likelihood (extremely plus somewhat likely) of pursuing a career related to outdoor adventure at posttest time 1 and a 68% likelihood in posttest time 2. In posttest time 1, 21% of the students indicated an extreme likelihood of pursuing a career related to outdoor adventure yet there was nearly an equal percentage of students indicating that it was somewhat unlikely they would pursue such a career (20%). Students 84 expressed a higher likelihood of pursuing a career in outdoor adventure/outdoor recreation one year later (33%) versus when they were asked immediately after their course. However, this difference is not statistically significant. Table 9 summarizes involvement in outdoor related organizations, attendance at conferences and workshops, subscription to outdoor/environmental magazines, participation in various outdoor adventure activities and experience leading outdoor adventure trips. This table reflects students’ knowledge, skills, and experience before and after NOLS. According to the literature (Cain & McAvoy, 1990; Green, 1981; Petzoldt, 1984), these factors enhance judgment and hence the development of leadership over time. There were no significant differences before and after NOLS in participation in knowledge-based activities or wilderness skills. However, there was a significant difference in the number of students leading trips. This result sugggest that the percentage of students leading trips increases over time. Participation in a wilderness course may have provided the opportunity to learn skills and increase confidence in leading others on outdoor trips. There was an 11% decrease (99% in pretest to 88% after NOLS course) in the followup survey in the number of students participating in adventure activities (skills). Stucco—:26 ~ as: uaeuuaoa 5 pages ass c6383 4 $5.53!: w as: 3638.. 2.» 3 taupe was as «55.52. «menace ~02. c. taxes as: as: 83830 . 88:22.6... 3.566 30: 05 ..euea use 233 ~ I...» uaeuuaoe 5 698328.. uaeu ou pee: was was? peas-es N ..oe uaeu flea-.395: assume: a .333 memes—a 3 28%.. 3 ppm as: see aemauceucaai- 85 30. a; 3 «on mm 2. an». - no. .4... .«xa .(xa as» an?» 33:26- peas. mafia Sn. no 0 me m up p 2. an» on use no nee .3: as» 83.33- ecsucesba 5 32:63.3... “a 93. non mm RR on a3 8 6.. a: ..n 83 on man em as» 863-2586 c. 3133...... 80.. an 3 up 3 moo 8’ oz an 5 new 3 5n 3 as» locates ..6 828.3280 scan»: coo. — man an awn mm RR 55 on x3 3 n3 on use 3 as» sac—usual 3 onto-9m. “g . 8:5... 25.. 36:5 ..Ba 36.5 ..Ba 33.5 8: >623 . ~ “838.. . ~ 38:9. 883 3.58 3.53 :39... «so: can: 39. access 6958 30: season .33 can: use scones 83.2%! spa-Rim enact-3:. 5 531.633.. .0 63m» 86 Table 10 outlines the female and male differences in participation level before and after NOLS. Overall, there were few differences between females and males in furthering their knowledge in wilderness education either before or after NOLS. Likewise, there was no relationship between gender and outdoor activity participation or leading outdoor adventure trips (r=.01). In fact, the pattern was reversed for females and males in these two dimensions. Whereas, males increased and females decreased their activity participation level after NOLS, females increased leading outdoor adventure trips after NOLS from 6 to 15 occasions, a 150% increase. The number of males leading outdoor adventure trips after NOLS increased from 6 to 7 (17%). This may suggest that since wilderness activities are in the male domain, males may find it easier to network with other males with whom to participate in activities. Females, on the other hand, may seek leadership opportunities in order to keep up their skills, and choose to remain involved because of the lack of finding other females who also participate in outdoor activities; or, females may prefer social interaction with a group whereas males prefer individual ativities. The data did not actually test these implications. They are merely hypotheses that would require further testing. w 10. RWY Pa: 9729‘ Outd 87 Table 10. Cowarisons of Female and Male Participation in Activities Before and After NOLS. ‘ Survey Itu Participation Participation before NOLS after NOLS Posttest time 2 Posttest time 2 (n=66) (n=66) PCT. PCT. osmscribe to magazines Yes 30 46% 31 47% Female 13 20% 15 23% Ilale 17 26% 16 24% No 35 53% 35 53% Female 21 32% 20 30% Nale 14 21% 15 23% OAttend conferences or workshops Yes 16 24% 15 23% Female 6 9% 8 12% Nale 10 15% 7 11% No 48 73% 48 73% Female 27 41% 25 38% hale 21 32% 23 35% oParticipate in Organizations Yes 30 45% 31 47% Female 14 21% 12 18% Nale 16 24% 19 29% No 36 55% 33 50% Fumle 21 32% 22 33% Male 15 23% 11 17% oPartici pate in adventure activities Yes 63 96% 58 88% Female 35 53% 30 45% Male 28 42% 38 58% No 3 4% 6 9% Female 0 0% 4 6% Male 3 4% 2 3% banks: Olead adventure trips Yes 12 18% 22 33% Female 6 9% 15 23% Male 6 9% 7 11% No 53 80% 40 61% Female 29 44% 19 29% hole 4 36% 21 32% ' Percentages may not add up to 100% due toTisfim values or students responding to more than one item. N There appears to be a small decrease in females participating in outdoor organizations after one year whereas there is an increase in males participating in outdoor organizations. With newly developed skills 88 experienced at NOLS, it is possible that females see less of a need to be involved in an organization, yet seem to put more energy into leading trips. Conversely, males may find being involved in an organization to be more important than leading trips. Again, these are conjectures that would need further investigation. The following section will highlight the differences between the control group and the pretest and posttest time 1 groups to determine the short-term effects of a wilderness course . Study Two: Short-Term Effects Research question one asks whether there is an increase in levels of self-efficacy immediately after the completion of a wilderness course. In other words, what are the short- term effects of a wilderness course? The first action was to determine the normality of the distributions in the control and the experimental groups. Figures K-l through K-4 (Appendix K) are histograms of the self-efficacy scale indicating the degree of normality across all four distributions. Figures K-3 and K-4 are positively skewed which is expected given that students should feel more efficacious after their NOLS course occurs. In order to ascertain that the normality assumption was not violated, the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used as a backup to the t-test in testing for mean differi paired siqnii hetue i, av neth< teas over that tesi dif per 9M 90. Efi 391 {82% 89 differences. It was found that the Wilcoxon test and the paired t-test gave identical results in terms of statistical significance. A MANOVA was used to test for an overall time effect between all three dependent groups (pretest, posttest time 1, and posttest time 2). MANOVA in SPSS was an appropriate method to use because the software allows for repeated measures of the same dependent variable to be analyzed for overall effect (Norusis, 1988). Once the MANOVA revealed that an overall time effect existed, dependent paired t- tests were used to determine more specifically where the differences were. Table 11 shows the t-test grand mean percentages in the control, pretest and posttest time 1 groups. Table 11. Comarisons Between Control, Pretest, and Posttest Time 1 Self-Efficacy Neans. Control Grow Pretest Group Control vs, Posttest Time 1 Congrgl vs, W, (Ii-86) 01-231) Est—98.! (n=194) w; P t t i ' SD )1 so p-value )1 SD p-value p-value 53% 19.22 48: 19.11 .015 82: 9.39 .000 .000 The results of Table 11 clearly demonstrate the POSitive short-term effects of a NOLS course on self- efficacy. In reference to research question 1, the posttest time 1 self-efficacy mean is significantly higher than the Self-efficacy means of the control or the pretest groups (32% vs. 53% and 48%, respectively; p =.000). 90 - ’tu e Lev l a d Stren t s Self-efficacy magnitude (level) was defined by the total number of items from 0 to 20 that the student perceived she/he would be able to perform. Zero indicated that the student had no confidence in performing the task. Any score above zero was included in magnitude computation. To determine the self-efficacy magnitude, the sample size was multiplied by the number of tasks (86 in control group x 20 tasks=1720). Next, the number of zero’s present were subtracted from the previous multiplication (1720-222=1498). Lastly, the previous sum was divided by the sample size (1498/86=17.4). The self-efficacy magnitude of the control group was 17.4, pretest group 17.6, the posttest time 1 group 19.7 and the posttest time 2 group 19.5. These numbers indicate that there was an overall increase in self- efficacy magnitude from pretest to posttest scores over the 20 tasks. The student’s self-efficacy magnitude (level) increased by a small margin from control to pretest group and increased considerably from pretest to posttest. There was very little decrease in a student's self-efficacy level from posttest time 1 to posttest time 2. Self-efficacy strength was measured by summing each percentage or confidence rating and dividing by the total number of tasks. The self-efficacy strength reflects the grand mean for control and experimental groups. Self- efficacy strengths were: control group, 53%; pretest group, 91 48%; posttest time 1 group, 82%; and posttest time 2 group, 76%. The larger self-efficacy strength in the control group from that of the pretest group indicates that there is likely to be less anxiety felt when students fill out the survey away from the NOLS site and in advance of their wilderness course thus, resulting in a stronger self— efficacy toward their ability to perform these wilderness tasks. W The purpose of the control group was to control for the factor of anxiety. Research indicates that students tend to be more anxious just before they begin their wilderness course (Koepke, 1973). Such anxiety may bias the results. Therefore, the purpose of the control group was to determine whether self-efficacy scores would be different if students were to complete the survey a month before they arrived in Wyoming. There was a significantly higher self-efficacy score in the control group compared to the experimental group (p =.015). These findings concur with Koepke's (1973) findings which indicate that there is an anxiety bias immediately before a student departs for the field. This anxiety bias can impact the validity of the responses (e.g., self-efficacy) at the point of anxiety. Posttest time 1 self-efficacy was significantly higher than pretest group and control group self-efficacy across 92 all 20 wilderness tasks (Appendix L-1). However, self- efficacy means in the control group were significantly higher than pretest group means in 6 out of 20 wilderness tasks: fishing (2 =.040), rappelling (p =.001), beginner climb (p =.009), backpack 3 miles with 601bs on ones back (9 =.009), intermediate climb (p =.002), and backpack 6 miles with 601bs on ones back (3 =.002). Significant differences occurred mostly in the first 10 wilderness tasks, all of which are defined as physical tasks. Perhaps students feel more anxious about physical than cognitive tasks just before going into the field. W The question seems to be which testing time (control vs. experimental) would be a more valid measure of one's self-efficacy? Bandura (1986) states that reduced anxiety raises levels of self-efficacy. Results support Bandura's finding, primarly for physical wilderness tasks. For such tasks, reduced anxiety increased self-efficacy. Support of Bandura's thesis was not as strong for most cognitive tasks. It appears that spending at least 2 weeks (short course) in the wilderness performing a variety of wilderness tasks is likely to reduce negative perceptions and anxiety that exist at the beginning of a course and increase levels of self- efficacy in those tasks. Although anxiety was not measured directly, the pattern of self-efficacy scores and Koepke's 93 study support an anxiety effect. Knowing this effect, wilderness education leaders may want to be aware of the anxiety students feel before a course and attempt to reduce it. Overall, significant differences in posttest time 1 scores from pretest and control scores (Table 11 6 Appendix L-l) provide evidence that experience in wilderness tasks over a duration of 23 or 30 days has a positive effect on one’s self-efficacy. Study Two: Long-Term Effects Research question 2 pertains to whether self-efficacy persists over time (i.e., between posttest time 1 and posttest time 2). Approximately 1 year after the NOLS course, posttest time 2 surveys were mailed to the same sample of students who participated in both the 1992 pretest and posttest time 1 surveys. Table 12 shows that the posttest time 2 self-efficacy mean (76%) was significantly lower than the posttest time 1 self-efficacy mean (82%). Moreover, posttest time 2 self- efficacy scores decreased from the posttest time 1 scores in all wilderness tasks over a year’s time (Appendix L-2). Significant decreases in self-efficacy scores were found in 10 out of the 20 tasks: fishing (2 =.000), stream crossing (p =.029), use of an ice axe (p =.000), outdoor cooking (n.=.oo1), identifying weather patterns (9 =.000), first aid (9 =.000), judging distance from A to B (p =.008), route 94 Table 12. Comparisons Between Posttest Time 1 and Posttest Time 2 Self-Efficacy Means. TPBsttest Time 1 Posttest Time 2 (n=194) (n=66)‘ M SD M SD P value 82* 9.39 76% 11.56 .000 ‘ No Posttest time 2 surveys were conducted in year 2 due to research grant constraints; therefore sample size is small relative to Time 1. finding (9 =.007), leading a small group in a wilderness setting (9 =.003), and evacuation procedures (9 =.000). It appears that directly after a NOLS course when skills are fresh and the experience not far removed, self- efficacy scores are at their highest. However, with the passage of time, and the potential of being less involved in wilderness activities as compared to a 30 day NOLS course, self-efficacy scores drop, but not as low as shown in pretest and control group scores. Posttest time 2 self- efficacy was significantly greater than control group self- efficacy (Table 13). Therefore, the NOLS experience provided an avenue for increasing a student's level of self- efficacy in wilderness education, but without continued involvement, the initial high level of self-efficacy declines significantly one year later. But since more lead trips 1 year later (Tables 9 6 10), the decline in self- efficacy is not great enough to curtail leadership entirely. 95 Table 13. Cowarisons Between Control, Pretest and Posttest Time 2 Self-Efficacy Nears. Control Grow: Pretest Grolp Posttest Time 2 Control Grow: vs. Pretest vs. (ti-86) (n-231) (ti-66) Posttest Time 2 Posttest Time 2 M SD M SD ll so P Value P Value 532 19.22 452 19.11 76% 11.56 .000 .000 In fact, it appears that leadership increases independent of self-efficacy decline. Study Two: Gender and Self-Efficacy The literature indicates that males have higher levels of self-efficacy in tasks that involve strength (physical skills) and spatial ability (cognitive skills) (Petersen, 1980). Yet there is also research evidence to suggest that females are equally matched with males in their cognitive abilities (Matlin, 1987). Because of these findings, the self-efficacy scale was divided between physical and cognitive related tasks. The self-efficacy scale consisted of 20 wilderness tasks most commonly found in wilderness education programs. The first ten tasks displayed a more physical orientation involving strength and physical skills and the latter ten tasks consisted of more cognitively related tasks. ‘ retest comparisons between female and male self- efficacy scores for each individual physical and cognitive wilderness task are shown in Appendix L-3 and L-4. There is clearly an interaction between gender and anxiety. In the control group, females were consistently (but not 96 statistically) higher in their self-efficacy compared to men (18 out of 20 tasks) and significantly higher in climbing a 12,000 ft. peak (p =.024). Males reported higher but not significantly higher self-efficacy in fishing and in first aid. In the pretest measures, male self-efficacy scores were significantly higher in 15 out of 20 wilderness tasks and higher in all tasks compared to females. The tasks which were not statistically significant were beginner level climb (p =.060), flora and fauna (p =.761), outdoor cooking (p =.955), first aid (p =.068), and minimum impact camping (p_=.098). Females appear to feel more efficacious than males when the potential for anxiety is less (control group). Whereas, males tend to feel more efficacious when the potential for anxiety is greater (pretest group). There are several alternative interpretations which will require further research. For example, female self- efficacy appears to be more affected by anxiety than males or females may feel more anxious than males at the time just before the course begins. Females may tend to underestimate their abilities at this time, particularly when they are contending with skills that involve strength and are involved in activities that are in the male domain. Males may overestimate their abilities because the activities are socially characterized as male dominated. Therefore, they 97 may feel a stronger need to achieve or rate themselves higher, even during stressful times. Table 14 and 15 summarize Appendix Tables L—3 through L-6. The only significant difference in overall self- efficacy between females and males is in the pretest results (Table 14). Females felt significantly less efficacious than males. This finding suggests that anxiety has a greater impact on female self-efficacy than male self- efficacy at the onset of a wilderness course. Table 14. Comparisons Between Female and Male Self-Efficacy Scores in Control and Experimental Groups. Control Pretest Posttest Time 1 Posttest Time 2 Group Group Group Group (n-86) (n-231) (n-194) (ns66) (F839, N245) (F8102, N2129) (F889, N8105) (F835, N831) Gender M SD P-value M SD P-value M SD P-valua M SD P-value Female "5sx 19.51 41: 13.12 325 9.7577 ‘755 12.43 Male 51% 18.93 .295 53% 18.16 .000 82% 9. 1 .813 76% 12.02 .921 F-Females NINales The results in Table 15 reveal that females felt greater, but not significantly greater, self-efficacy in both physical and cognitive tasks in the control group. Males had significantly higher self-efficacy scores in physical and cognitive tasks in the pretest group. There were no significant gender differences in physical and cognitive tasks in either the posttest time 1 or posttest time 2 results. 98 Table 15. Cowarisons Between Female and Male Physical and Cognitive Self-Efficacy Scores in Control and Experimental Grows. Control Pretest Posttest Time 1 Posttest Time Grow Grow Grow Grow (11886) (n8231) (n=194) (n866) (F839, N845) (F8102, 118129) (F889, 118129) (F835, N831) fut 11 SD P-value M SD P-value M SD P~value 11 SD P-value PuYSICAL Fc—nle 63% 18.57 42% 19.87 83% 10.62 78% 14.03 88.1- 57% 20.17 .161 57% 20.10 .000 83% 10.75 .942 78% 13.16 .890 WITH! F’ll 49% 24. 39% 20.87 80% 11.50 74% 13.57 05 08.0.- 46% 23.66 .604 49% 20.31 .001 81% 9.87 .642 74% 13.45 .997 F-chmmles N-Nales The comparisons of females to males in physical and cognitive self-efficacy in the posttest time 2 sample are shown in Appendix L-5 and L-6. There were still no significant differences between females and males in self- effieacy strength one year after taking their NOLS course. In 8 out of 20 tasks, females had nonsignificantly higher Secres than males in the tasks of fishing, stream crossing, l33<31éact between the independent variables and the dependent Variable, a path coefficient (standardized beta weight) is I=.e"ealed which signifies the relative weight an independent variable contributes to the dependent variable. The larger 101 the value the greater effect on the dependent variable, controlling for the other independent variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1986). The hypothesized model under investigation included path coefficients, E values (signifying goodness of fit), and 33 values (signifying the percentage of variance explained by the variables in the model). The first part of this section is a discussion of the results of regressing self-efficacy on goal attainment, feedback, and mentoring (research question 4). Much of the literature is based upon the effects of these independent variables on self-efficacy. Therefore, it is important to determine the degree to which this research supports the literature and vice versa. The second part of this section investigates the full model which adds the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development. Belgtignship Between Feedback, Goal Attainment and Mentgrigg with Self-Efficacy The first step in developing a path model of leadership development was to create a Pearson zero-order correlation matrix (Norusis, 1988) containing the variables of feedback, mentoring, goal attainment, and self-efficacy. The regression equations that follow reflect predictions between the independent variables and the dependent variable. In regression, the value of one variable depends on the value Of another. For every unit of change in the independent Variable there is an equal or proportionate change in the 102 dependent variable. Interval data are measured in precise (equal units) units versus nominal or ordinal data. Thus, the predictive value of the regression equation is more interpretable and valid when using interval data (Boyle, 1971; Agresti E Finley, 1986). Since self-efficacy was the only variable that was measured in interval units, mentoring, direct and indirect feedback, and goal attainment were recoded as a dummy sequence to reflect interval data (Boyle, 1971). Each variable was coded either with a 0 or 1 indicating a category (i.e.,level). Dummy coding created standardized beta weights so that the standard deviations in an independent variable would equal the standard deviation in the dependent variable (Pedhazur, 1982). The ordinal data in this study, such as the measurements of immediate feedback (mostly immediate to mostly delayed feedback) and positive feedback (mostly positive to mostly negative feedback), approximate interval scales and therefore were not dummy coded. Hunter (1994) suggests that ordinal data do not need to be dummy coded because they reflect a form of interval data. Changing these variables to a dummy coding scheme was likely to lead to highly confusing results. However, the regression models were run both ways: dummy coding of immediate and positive feedback and leaving them in their original form. Since no Significant differences were found in the correlations, it 103 was decided to continue the path analysis with the original ordinal coding for positive feedback and immediate feedback. There were both reliability and validity problems with the way mentoring and feedback were measured in the first year. There were only three questions that measured mentoring in the first year (Question 8, 9, a 10, Appendix H) and the measurement of feedback was complex and difficult for students to understand (Question #6, Appendix H). Therefore, the posttest time 1 (1993) survey data were used to analyze the variables of goal attainment, feedback and mentoring. Compared to the posttest time 1 survey in 1992, the 1993 survey consisted of a more simplified method of gathering information about the amount and type of feedback that was received. In an effort to increase the reliability and validity of the measurement, the number of questions pertaining to the mentoring variable was increased from three to six (Questions 12-17, Appendix I). Goal attainment was measured similarly to the first year but also asked whether or not students attained the goals they had identified in the pretest. Therefore, it is assumed that the 1993 posttest time 1 (Appendix I) instrument consisted of a more valid measure of the independent variables than the corresponding 1992 instrument (Appendix H). In the following paragraph, a description of the procedure for omo_tm1:ow .0 Boo: 5mm coEooammm .comoaota ccm “662352;: .0 059m ..mDOS. CNN—wthOn—>I mo. .332.ng notmacw E «0. an >omozeM1tmm .cmEc_m:< .moG op. op. xo-suo.c 9:32;: 3832...... sowsuu.a .>:_OOQ 111 respecified model. Since the path coefficient between goal .attainment and self-efficacy in the hypothesized model was low (BF-04). that path link was eliminated in order to create a more parsimonious model. By eliminating the goal attainment link, the adjusted E increased by 1%. The variables of mentoring, positive feedback and immediate feedback explain approximately 9% of the variance in the respecified model. Eemele egg Mele Self-Efficacy Bath Coefficiengs To determine whether the independent variables in the model have different predictive influences on self-efficacy for females or males, separate regression models were derived for females and males (Table 18). Mentoring (B 8.38, p 8.009), positive feedback (5 =.24, p =.100), and goal attainment (fl =.25, p =.077) appear to be the strongest predictors of female self-efficacy. Mentoring was the only significant predictor of self-efficacy for women and appears to be the best indicator out of all of the independentvariables. Immediate feedback revealed a zero path coefficient (5 =-.01, p =.924), indicating that it had almost no influence on female self-efficacy. By contrast, the only predictor in the model that appeared to have an influence on male self-efficacy was immediate feedback (5 =.25, p =.092). Goal attainment was not significant for 112 either females or males, but close to significant for females (3 =.25, p =.08). The hypothesized model tended to fit the data well for females (2 8.003) but not for males (fi =.270). The adjusted R: for females was .34480. That is, approximately 34% of the variance was explained by the variables in Table 18. When regressing self-efficacy on mentoring alone, about 23% of the variance was explained by the mentoring variable. The adjusted at for males was .09824 which indicates about 9% of the variance was explained by the variables in Table 18. These findings are consistent with the notion that females tend to be less task oriented than males (Appling, 1989), Also, females may depend on mentoring and positive feedback to impact their self-efficacy which in turn enhances their performance. On the other hand, the literature suggests that males are more task oriented. Feedback which is received immediately after their successes and task performances may have a stronger impact on their self-efficacy. This immediate feedback may be derived from their own success in performing a task rather than the immediate feedback received from their instructors. The success that is received from their performance may be a factor that impacts their level of self-efficacy. In essence, females may need to gather the support first to raise levels of self-efficacy in order to perform a task, whereas males increase their levels of self-efficacy by the 113 immediate feedback in a task. All of these inferences require further study. Figure 7 displays the first part of the hypothesized model and the new respecified model for females. Since immediate feedback was found to have little influence on self-efficacy (B =-.01) for females, the link was eliminated. Although the variables in the new respecified model created a small difference in the variance explained (33 =.29) from the hypothesized model (B: =.34), it once again lends itself to a more parsimonious model. It is important to acknowledge that both positive and immediate feedback had a significant correlation for females (I =.309). This spurious relationship (variables sharing a common cause) is designated in the model by a circle around immediate feedback and a curved line between both types of feedback. Figure 8 displays the first part of the hypothesized model and the new respecified model for males. Immediate feedback explained most of the variance (9%) found in the hypothesized model. Immediate feedback was found to have a significant influence (5 =.29, p =.024) on male self— efficacy. Although immediate feedback appears to have the most salient impact on a male's self-efficacy, 91% of the variance is not explained. Both full and respecified models left a great a deal of unexplained variance which suggests 114 66.686“. .2 >omo_tw..:ow so .ocoz Ema coEomamom .comoaota ccm 35352;: K 652m mo; 60.32:ch . .5005. DEEOMn—mmm .waOaOm—n. mm. .323.ng cocmacm m ..oo. nu— >omo_:mi:ow on. ~ceEc.m:< .moG D xosnceam .an. .6 22.625... xosaceem 05.32;: al.-ace xtaomotmeow ..wOOS. DMN_wmI._.On_>I v0. .Aoosmapmv oocmacw m moo. .... aceE:_m:( xomauomu some-teem .moO aetosce: e.a_erE_ 3.2.6.. 115 9222 ..2 homofmutow so .2622 Ema coEooamom .comoaosa can co~_mo£oa>z .m 659“. mo; oocmoEcEn . - Jun—OE Dw_n:0wn_wmm .DmeaOmn. ...moOS. DMN_wMIHOn_>I mo. 162333 seesaw m mo. .333ng oocmacm m «o. .m 5N. ...... >omo_tm..:ow >omoEmurow m e .3. an. no. xomauemu somaueeu acmEc.m:< xomauamm xomaumeu e.s.meEE_ sizaom .25 0:26:32 28:62.3: al.-ace n'.ab 116 that this model will need to be further investigated, especially for males. ‘ Similar to the respecified model for females, it is important to acknowledge that positive and immediate feedback had a significant correlation for males (I =.426) as well. This is indicated in the model by a circle around positive feedback and a curved line connecting the two types of feedback indicating the relationship between them. To summarize, path analysis reveals that mentoring has the greatest influence on self-efficacy across the full sample. However, mentoring is a significant determinant of female self-efficacy only. Goal attainment was found to have little influence on self-efficacy in the full hypothesized model. The literature suggests that the attainment of goals has an impact on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). The lack of influence in this study was due, in part, to the measurement of goal attainment in the survey. Since most students attained their goals there was little variance in the results. Goal attainment however, had a greater impact on self-efficacy for females than it did for females. ' With reference to the impact of feedback on self- efficacy, regardless of how much feedback one receives or how directly or indirectly it is given, it is the positive and immediate feedback that shows the greatest influence on self-efficacy. Although the literature supports the impacts 117 of positive and immediate feedback on self-efficacy, the results indicate that the impact is different for females and males. The results show that positive feedback is more important for females whereas immediate feedback is more important for males in raising levels of self-efficacy. Rink (1985) states that if the feedback is delayed beyond the point of remembering the behavior, then a person loses out on the benefits of that feedback. For men, such a delay may affect self-efficacy more than for women. Study Two: Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Leadership Development To determine the relationship that self-efficacy had on leadership development (research question 5), a zerosorder correlation matrix was developed. This matrix involved all appropriate variables in the hypothesized full model. Leadership development was operationalized as continued involvement in knowledge, skill and experience-enhancing activities. Posttest time 1 (1993) and posttest time 2 (1 year followup) self-efficacy scores were used. In the posttest time 2 survey, questions 10 - 15 measured leadership development (Appendix J). These questions pertained to knowledge (attending conferences, belonging to organizations and subscribing to magazines), participation in wilderness activities after NOLS (skills) and leading outdoor trips (experience) (Figure 1). A composite of knowledge, skills and experience was computed to measure 118 leadership development. The relationships among those variables included in the path model are shown in Table 19. Amount of feedback, direct feedback and indirect feedback were eliminated from the matrix because of the low correlations found previously (Table 17). The relationship between posttest time 1 self-efficacy (immediately after a NOLS course) and leadership development (measured one year later) was shown to be positive but not significant (1 =.155). Furthermore, leadership development was significantly correlated (I =.249) with a student's self-efficacy one year later (posttest time 2). Thus, self- efficacy and leadership development (as defined) are positively related and this relationship appears to work in both directions. Future models need to test the nonrecursive (two way relationship of leadership development and self-efficacy) nature of this relationship. Path analysis is capable of testing the nonrecursive nature of a model. In comparing the relationship of these variables based on gender, posttest time 1 self-efficacy for both females and males was positively correlated with leadership development (I =.010; ; =.350, respectively). This positive relationship remained one year later as leadership development had a significant relationship with female self- efficacy (I 8.453) and a positive, nonsignificant relationship with male self-efficacy (; =.116). Table 19. 119 Zero-Order Correlation Matrix of Full Hypothesized Path Model of Leadership Development. Goal Attain Positive Feedback l-Iedi ate Feedback Mentor Self- Efficacy Posttest Time 1 Self- Efficacy Posttest Time 2 Leader Develop * significance at ps .01 ** significance at p< .001 Goal Attain -.061 -.03£ .213* .072 -.100 .026 Positive Feedback .376** .151 .246** -.087 -.083 Immediate Feedback .048 .211* -.011 -. .013 Mentor Self- Efficacy Posttest Time 1 .231* 002 -.006 .064 .155 Self- Efficacy Posttest Time 2 Leader Develop .269‘ Although the relationship remains to be positive for both genders, the relationship is statistically stronger for ViCHMfiBfI. wilderness education sustains their self-efficacy. It appears that womens' continued involvement in The relationship between female self-efficacy and leadership development was also weak (; =.010). The relationship between female self-efficacy at posttest time 1 and posttest time 2 is weak as well (I = -.006). It appears that initial self-efficacy has little effect for women, but it gives them a beginning. the key for women. Further involvement in wilderness education is Goal attainment, mentoring, and immediate feedback showed weak but positive relationships with leadership 120 development. The relationships between these variables and self-efficacy were stronger than they were for leadership development. Thus, self-efficacy may function as a mediating variable between the independent variables and leadership development, a proposition which supports the recursive nature of the model. To test the full hypothesized model, a regression analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of self-efficacy and the other independent variables on leadership development. Table 20 summarizes the overall regression results of the leadership development model and shows the differences between the regression models for females and males. Self-efficacy (posttest time 1) has a path coefficient of B =.15 (p =.34) indicating that self-efficacy has a positive but nonsignificant impact on leadership development. However, leadership development has a positive and significant impact on self-efficacy one year later (3 =.24, p =.05). This result provides a strong indication of the revolving impacts that self-efficacy and leadership development have on each other. Self-efficacy affects one's leadership development, yet the continued involvement in wilderness education activities also appears to be important for maintaining and enhancing one's self-efficacy. Goal attainment, immediate feedback, and mentoring show positive yet weak (near 0) path coefficients toward 121 Table 20. Path Analysis of the Full Hypothesized Path Model of Leadership Development. Variable Beta Height T Value Significance R Squared F Statistic Ratio of Tabled T Goal Attaimt All .002099 .020 .9841 Female -.024980 -.120 .9056 Male .074260 .347 .7319 Positive Feedback All -.111820 -.719 .4757 Female -.229114 -1.045 .3079 Male .008311 .036 .9716 immediate Feedback All .054240 .355 .7242 All: .09496 .6515 Female .163702 .794 .4359 Female: .26839 .3997 Male -.062435 -.266 .7926 Male: .15453 .8292 Mentoring All .080711 .544 .5890 Female .373327 1.662 .1113 Male -.026283 -.123 .9035 Self-Efficacy Posttest Time 1 All .148938 1.056 .3423 Female .008363 .036 .9705 Male .390363 1.538 .1449 Self-Efficacy Posttest Time 2 All .249127 1.956 .0549 Female .452797 2.539 .0177 Male .115814 .649 .5210 * significance p<.05 *' significance p<.01 *" significance p<.001 leadership development in the full model. These variables explain approximately 9% of the variance in the hypothesized model. Thus, over 90% of the variance that impacts leadership development is captured by other factors. Figure 9 displays the full hypothesized path model and proposed, respecified model of leadership development. The path coefficient between leadership development and self-efficacy 122 2930850 25533 B Enos. omEooammm .oomoooi ocm oo~_mm£oa>r :3“. .m 959“. no; oocmozEEm . ..moOS. Om_n:0wn_wmm .waOn—OEQ mo. .uocmaaw m up. ..n. Ammo: omN_mm_._._.On_>I .15“. >omo_:w1:ow mo. . oocmaaw m :9 no. ..u. 30.5.2960 Eoan_o>oo 253250.. Engage.— ep.~ afifl 33:51.3 33:31.3 I. ...H .2 no. .3. \ vifi e.. 33...... 33...: 22.522 833:». gonna-... 22er5. est—nod 9:32;: .eoa octosee: . 22.35.... sis-eon. 123 (one year later) was B =.24 (p =.05), revealing a significant relationship. . When examining the differences between females and males in the full hypothesized model, female self-efficacy immediately after a NOLS course does not appear to be a strong predictor of leadership development (a =.DO9). However, mentoring has a significant impact (g =.37). This indicates that mentoring not only has a strong influence on female self-efficacy, but also contributes directly to leadership development in women. Figure 10 provides an illustration of the full hypothesized model and a proposed, respecified model of leadership development for females. The model does not indicate a good fit (2 =.38), yet nearly 27% of the variance is explained by these variables. That is, about 73% of the variance remains to be explained by unknown factors that may have an impact on a female’s development as a wilderness leader. When adding self-efficacy to the model one year later, leadership development has a significant impact on a female’s self-efficacy (5 =.45). This result indicates that a women’s continued involvement in wilderness education activities contributes to her self-efficacy. Self-efficacy makes a positive contribution to female leadership development yet leadership development made an even stronger impact on continued self-efficacy. 124 $380... .8 2.950330 2.3.533 to Enos. 5mm ooEooowmm .ommoaotm ocm om~6o£oo>1 :3“. .9 9.sz mo; oocaozEEa . Jun—OS. Dm:n:0wn_mmm .owdeOmn. em. .oocaaam m . Z. ... ..mQOE owN._wwI._.Oe>I .33“. >omo_:w-:om hm. 5236.0. 1 3% mm. 3. 30:32:00 Eoan_o>oo Sentence; 229.033.. ...; i >om0_:mu:ow aceEc_m:< .eoO >omo_:ma:ow 1 xoeaveen— e>2.mom aceE:.e.~< .moa xoenoeem 3292...... xoenueem e>.~.mo¢ 9:32;: 9:22.31 125 These revolving relationships do not hold for males. Male self-efficacy is a much stronger predictor on leadership development than female self-efficacy (g =.35 vs. n=.009, respectively) (Figure 11). In other words, the more efficacious males perceive themselves to be in a particular task or tasks, the more likely they will continue their involvement in wilderness education. However, the path coefficient between leadership development and self-efficacy (one year later) is much lower (5 =.12 vs. B =.4S), indicating that continued involvement in wilderness education activities does not have as strong of an impact on male self-efficacy as it does for females. The full hypothesized model (Figure 11) does not fit the data, particularly for men, as it shows an F value of .83. Approximately 15% of the variance was explained by self- efficacy and the independent variables for males. Since there is not a strong relationship between leadership development and self-efficacy one year later, the proposed respecified model for males ends at leadership development. Including self-efficacy (one year later) in the model for males decreases the variance explained to 2%. 126 00.0.2 .2 .c0an.0>0o 2590000.. .o .003... fan. ...moo: om...._omn.wmm .QmwOmOmn. ms. .o0amaow m «N. .n. “:0an_0>0o 3530000.. >000...mu:0w ..oeoueem 0.0.00.5... mo; 00:02:33 . 00:30.50”. 6002.05 0:0 00500503.... :3“. .: 059“. ..wQOE QmN_wwIPO&>I .33... or. 60.03.; m mm. an. E0an.0>0o 2330000.. .‘ useE:.m:< .eoG 05.3.3: xomaueem 3300.5... somnueem 2.2.6... 127 Summary In the remaining section of this chapter, an overall summary of the key findings from Study One and Study Two *will be presented. Each research question will be restated and results pertinent to that question will be highlighted. Path model propositions will also be addressed. Stud One: a s ' s It can be concluded that NOLS has some impact on students' continued involvement in wilderness education, but not necessarily as leaders. The results from the oral histories revealed that everyone (n =19) continued to some degree in wilderness education activities after NOLS. Fifteen out of the nineteen people interviewed belonged to an outdoor or environmental organization. Just under half of the former students indicated that NOLS had an influence on their continued involvement in wilderness education activities. These findings also support the long-term effects of a wilderness course on leadership development. Approximately 84% of the students relied on feedback to guide their performance on the course. Overall, feedback appeared to be an important element for most students although, it may be more salient for those students who initially had little experience in the outdoors. The results indicated that those with little experience relied on feeedback more than those with more experience. Over a 128 third of those students interviewed did not particularly care from whom they received feedback, although some paid more attention to the Course Leader (CL). Some appreciated the feedback more when it was positive, and one student in particular would have found the feedback more worthwhile if it had been given from someone with whom she/he had connected. Key Findings From Study ng se c uestio . Does self-efficacy increase immediately after the completion of a wilderness course? What are the short-term effects of a wilderness course? In addressing this question, there were two significant findings. The first was in the control group. The purpose of this group was to assess the effects of anxiety on a student’s self-efficacy. It was found that there was a significant increase (2 =.OOO) in self-efficacy scores when the factor of anxiety was controlled by measuring self- efficacy one month prior to participation in a wilderness course. In other words, students tend to perceive themselves to be more efficacious when the potential for anxiety is less. Although there may be other factors that impact upon the significant decrease in self-efficacy immediately before going in the field, this supports Koepke's (1973) findings that students tend to be more anxious just before they begin their wilderness course. 129 The second finding showed that the posttest time 1 self- efficacy scores were signficantly higher than the pretest self-efficacy scores (9 =.000). This was primarily due to the drop in self-efficacy for women from control to pretest (See Question #3 for further discussion). Some of this may be due to the afterglow of the course and the good feelings derived from the accomplishments gained over the last month. This may have created a bias in the results similar to the effects that anxiety has on one's self-efficacy. The increase in posttest time 1 self-efficacy may also be due to the intensity and daily exposure to many of the skills on a NOLS course included in the self-efficacy scale. Beggazgh Questigg 2. Does the increase in self-efficacy persist over time (what are the long-term effects of a wilderness course?). Self-efficacy scores were significantly lower at posttest time 2 (one year later) than at posttest time 1 (immediately after a course). This finding suggests that when skills and experiences are fresh and current, self- efficacy tends to be at its highest. Over the course of a year, when outdoor skills were likely to be less frequently used and condensed as compared to a 30-day wilderness course, self-efficacy decreased, but not to the level the students experienced when they began the wilderness course. Since posttest time 2 self-efficacy scores remained significantly higher than control or pretest groups, one can 130 conclude that the self-efficacy scores persist over time, and therefore provide some indication that the NOLS I experience provided an avenue for increasing one’s self- efficacy in wilderness education. Furthermore, these results imply that students, particularly female students, need to keep actively and consistently involved to maintain self-efficacy. e ti Are there differences between female and male self-efficacy scores? The only significant gender difference in self-efficacy scores was found in the pretest measures where males had significantly higher self-efficacy scores than females (2 =.000). There were no significant differences in self- efficacy levels between females and males at posttest time 1 or 2. .Precourse anxiety potentially explains the pretest difference. Female and male self-efficacy scores were not different when assessed 1 month prior (control group). This suggests that female self-efficacy may tend to be more affected by anxiety than male self-efficacy. Another explanation for pretest differences may be that given a stressful situation, females may underestimate their abilities and rate themselves conservatively on their abilities to perform a task. On the other hand, males may overestimate their abilities and give themselves a generous 131 rating of their ability to perform a task during stressful and anxious situations. . This difference in self-efficacy between females and males immediately before the course may also have been influenced by the kinds of tasks that were about to be performed. Since the self-efficacy scale consisted of wilderness tasks which tend to be more socially defined as male oriented (i.e., tasks requiring physical strength), a female's perception of her ability to perform such tasks may have decreased her confidence immediately prior to the course. A third explanation involves females acting more intuitive while males tend to be more action/task oriented. According to Ferrier (1992), males tend to take a course of action without really taking into consideration their intuition about their action. In other words, males tend to be less connected with their socioemotional selves. On the other hand, females tend to intuit their behaviors and are more conservative in perceiving their actions. In relating this information to the study results, the control group may have offered females the time as well as absence of anxiety to cognitively and intuitively think through their perceptions of their ability to perform a task. This more inherent and instinctive ability to first intuit tasks and experiences may be part of the reason for feeling more efficacious than males in the control group and less 132 efficacious in the pretest group. Women and men employ different strategies to cope with different and stressful situations. For example, males instinctively are less inclined to take the time to intuit their ability to perform a task. Men tend to be more task oriented and consequently become more immediately involved in the task (Appling, 1989). Therefore, they have less time to become anxious. Thus, for them, anxiety may not directly effect their level of self-efficacy as much as it does females. W The five path model propositions and their key findings are repeated here. In addition, Questions 4 & 5 will be addressed as they related to these five propositions. 1. Leadership development is directly and positively influenced by self-efficacy. The path coefficients between self-efficacy and leadership development shown in the full hypothesized model (Figure 9) and in the female and male hypothesized models (Figures 10 and 11) were positive and thus in the direction predited by the literature. This indicates that leadership development is positively influenced by self-efficacy. 2. Self-efficacy is positively influenced by goal attainment, mentoring and feedback. Figure 9 reveals that self-efficacy was positively influenced by goal attainment, mentoring and feedback. In 133 Figure 10, self-efficacy was negatively influenced by immediate feeback for females (B =-.Ol), yet mentoring significantly influenced female self-efficacy (B =.19). Figure 11 illustrates that goal attainment had a negative influence on female self-efficacy (B =-.05), and immediate feedback had a strong influence on male self-efficacy (B =.25). Although the sample as a whole supported Bandura’s (1986) research on the positive impacts that feedback and goal attainment have on self-efficacy, this study did not indicate support when the sample was divided between females and males. If Bandura had considered gender, there may have been different results in his research. 3. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are not related to each other. There was a significant relationship between goal attainment and mentoring (; =.21), with positive correlations in evidence between mentoring and indirect feedback, mentoring and immediate feedback, mentoring and positive feedback, and mentoring and amount of direct and indirect feedback. Relationships between goal attainment and the feedback variables were either negative, or close to zero. The positive relationships that occurred among goal attainment, feedback and mentoring supports the literature that describes goal attainment and feedback as positive 134 components of a mentoring process (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992). 4. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are the only predictors of self-efficacy. The results revealed that goal attainment, mentoring and feedback explained some of the variance in predicting self—efficacy (B:==.08). However, these variables explained 34% of the variance for females and 9% for males indicating that the hypothesized model is a stronger predictor of leadership development for females than males. Mentoring explained most of the variance for females (23%) which indicates that goal attainment and feedback do not explain much variance for either gender. There is a need to consider and include other factors that can impact self- efficacy. 5. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are not direct predictors of leadership development. The full hypothesized model (Figure 9) revealed that goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are better predictors of self-efficacy than leadership development. However, for females, mentoring had a significant path coefficient (B =.37) with leadership development, indicating a direct influence. Again, this result reveals the significance mentoring has not only on a female's self- efficacy but also on her development as a leader. Since 135 mentoring reflects a more relational element, this supports Luna & Cullen's (1990) research that women seek interaction and the opportunity to share experiences. a st Do higher levels of feedback, goal attainment, and mentoring show a positive relationship with self-efficacy? Positive feedback, immediate feedback, and mentoring were significantly and positively correlated with self- efficacy (; =.246, ; =.211, ; =.231, respectively). After partialling out the effects of positive and immediate feedback, mentoring (5 =.19) had a positive influence on a person’s level of self-efficacy. This was followed by positive feedback (B =.16) and immediate feedback (3 =.14). Goal attainment revealed little influence (5 =.05) on self- efficacy. The findings were more revealing when the sample was divided by gender. For female students, mentoring (B =.38), positive feedback (3 =.21), and goal attainment (B =.24) were the strongest predictors of self-efficacy. Unlike the findings in the overall sample, immediate feedback (3 =-.01), was a weak indicator of female self-efficacy. These results show that females rely on mentoring relationships, specifically when those relationships can provide an avenue for positive feedback. There was also a significantly positive correlation (r 8.213) between 136 mentoring and goal attainment. Although not tested in this model, it is possible that mentoring leads to higher goal attainment, and together lead to an increased level of self- efficacy. In the male population, immediate feedback was the only strong indicator of higher self-efficacy (B =.29). The remaining variables had very little, if any, impact on the male students' reported self-efficacy (path coefficients were all less than .081). Since males have been found to be more task oriented (Appling, 1989) than females, perhaps their success in a task provides them with sufficient immediate feedback to boost their self-efficacy. WW Is there a positive relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development? For the overall population sampled, the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development (continuous involvement in wilderness education activities) was positive (; =.155). Furthermore, self-efficacy had a positive influence on leadership development (a =.15), although not significantly so. In the female sample, self-efficacy immediately after the course had very little impact on one's leadership development (B =.008). However, one year after students completed the course, findings showed that leadership 137 development had a significant impact on female self-efficacy (B 8.45, p =.02). This may indicate that it is only after females have affirmed their development as a leader (through continuous involvement in wilderness education activities) that they feel self-efficacious. Thus, the process of leadership development enhances female self-efficacy. Unlike females, male reported self-efficacy immediately following the course had a strong impact on leadership development (3 =.39). However, self-efficacy one year after the course, had less impact on leadership development (3 =.11). Because males are more task oriented, they may not require continuous involvement in wilderness education activities to augment their self-efficacy. Rather, males may feel efficacious after a single NOLS course. It is this perceived self-efficacy that encourages them to develop their leadership potential. Lastly, these findings revealed that self-efficacy not only had an overall positive, nonsignificant relationship with leadership development, but that leadership development also had a positive effect on self-efficacy for females. The only significant impact found was the impact that female self-efficacy (one year later) had on leadership development (B =.45, p =.02). Since self-efficacy has an impact on leaderhip development and leadership development has an impact on self-efficacy, this suggests that the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development may not be 138 linear but rather dynamic, continuous and cyclical. Future research on the recursive nature (two-way causal flow) of this relationship is recommended. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to draw conclusions from the major findings and discuss the implications of this study. The first section entails a discussion of changes in self-efficacy over time as well as gender differences that exist between female and male self-efficacy levels. Throughout this first section, the emphasis will be on clarifying the outdoor leadership development process. The next section will provide some implications of this research for wilderness educators. The third section, study limitations, assesses ways in which study reliability and validity were impacted. The last section will provide direction for future research on outdoor leadership and wilderness education. Conclusions From Major Findings One of the outcomes that is assumed to result from participating in wilderness education courses is leadership. For example, the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) hopes that students continue their involvement in wilderness 139 140 education in the future, yet there has been no assurance that it occurs. The purpose of this research was to identify those factors which contributed to leadership development in wilderness education. There were three objectives: a)to assess the short and long-term effects of self-efficacy on leadership development; b)to evaluate gender differences in self-efficacy and in outdoor leadership development; c)to propose and evaluate a path model of outdoor leadership development. This section will indicate the extent to which these objectives were achieved and how this information will enhance the body of knowledge on outdoor leadership. To evaluate these objectives, the six most significant findings from this study and their respective conclusions are discussed below. ,._e 251°,-’.--.l! - :e‘ ; - In the short-term,self-efficacy scores were significantly higher immediately after the wilderness course. This effect was not a surprise since students were engaged in wilderness tasks and activities continually throughout a 23 or 30 day period. These results indicate that experience, opportunities to expand knowledge and skills in the outdoors can enhance one's self-efficacy in wilderness education activities. Formal outdoor education 141 programs can be an effective vehicle for developing leadership. .a'-. ‘1. 1- _ - _. .- ‘eu ~cts o_ S‘_ - One year after their NOLS course, students' self- efficacy scores dropped significantly yet continued to persist at a significantly higher level than their pretest self-efficacy scores. Thus, it is important to continue involvement in wilderness education activities as defined in this study. However, at this point, it is unknown which activities are more important than others in developing higher degrees of self-efficacy. .. . 7.2 ,. - ,-.q- o 'e -. e: a - --, Gender differences were most evident in pretest measures as males had significantly higher self-efficacy scores than females. However, there was no difference between female and male self-efficacy at posttest time 1 and posttest time 2. One of the explanations posited for the significant gender differences found during the pretest is the level of anxiety students feel before they begin a wilderness course. Anxiety effects will be further discussed in the Major Finding #6 paragraph (pp. 149). 142 i - o c Mo e Although wilderness education outcomes (i.e., improved self-esteem, leadership) provide a foundation for supporting the benefits of a wilderness education program, the literature identified the need to investigate the process by which desired outcomes on a wilderness course are achieved (Klint, 1990). The third objective of this study was to identify the process by which the outcome of leadership development was obtained. The proposed process was identified by a review of three bodies of literature and relevant theories. Four variables were selected to investigate the process of leadership development through the use of path analysis. Goal attainment, feedback, and mentoring were supported in the literature as having positive influences on self-efficacy, and self-efficacy was supported as a correlate of leadership development. Leadership development was operationalized in this research to indicate continued involvement in wilderness education. It is important to recognize that this research was concerned with the "process" toward leadership rather than defining who is and is not an outdoor leader. The full leadership model examined self-efficacy and leadership development linkages via path analysis. About 9% of the variance was explained by the three independent variables and self-efficacy with regard to their influence on leadership development. The new respecified model 143 eliminated the link between goal attainment and self- efficacy, thus creating a more parsimonious model of leadership development. However, neither the hypothesized or the respecified model resulted in significant goodness of fit ratios. Thus, Major Finding 4 is that neither model did a complete job of predicting leadership development. The path coefficient between self-efficacy and leadership development was positive indicating that self-efficacy had a positive, yet nonsignificant impact on leadership development. When dividing the sample by gender, self- efficacy was positive but still nonsignificantly related to leadership development for females and males. Since the variables in the full model explained little variance (9%) and since the goodness of fit ratio of the model was nonsignificant (E =.65), there is a need to investigate other variables and/or new measures that minimize the error in regression and enhance understanding of the leadership development process. Gender is one such variable that should be included in the path model. Leadership development was found to have a positive impact on self-efficacy (one year later). This suggests that self-efficacy may not function merely as a means to leadership development (i.e., recursive relationship) but rather may operate in a cyclical manner whereby leadership development and self-efficacy impact each other in a continuous process. This result provides justification for 125 These revolving relationships do not hold for males. Idale self-efficacy is a much stronger predictor on Ileadership development than female self-efficacy (g =.35 vs. EFuOO9, respectively) (Figure 11). In other words, the more efficacious males perceive themselves to be in a particular task or tasks, the more likely they will continue their involvement in wilderness education. However, the path coefficient between leadership development and self-efficacy (one year later) is much lower (g =.12 vs. g =.4S), indicating that continued involvement in wilderness education activities does not have as strong of an impact on male self-efficacy as it does for females. The full hypothesized model (Figure 11) does not fit the data, particularly for men, as it shows an F value of .83. Approximately 15% of the variance was explained by self- efficacy and the independent variables fOr males. Since there is not a strong relationship between leadership development and self-efficacy one year later, the proposed respecified model for males ends at leadership development. Including self-efficacy (one year later) in the model for males decreases the variance explained to 2%. 126 00.05. .5. .c0an.0>0n. 250.030.. .0 .0uo2 can. .0005. 37:850.“... .OmmOmOmn. mp. .o0.0=ow m hm. J. .c0an.0>0o 2:30.304 >000...wn:0w xoenoeeu 2030.5... mo; 00:00:26.0 . 00:60.50... .o0wooo.n. one o0~.m0....oo>... :3... .2 0.52... .5005. DMN_wwI._.Oa>I ....Dn. m... 1.0.03.5 m mm. .n. .c0Eoo.0>0o 2:32.004 .3021m120w 1 oceEc.e:( .moG 05.3.32 goes—ween. 2293...... ..oeaoee... 2.200.. 127 Summary In the remaining section of this chapter, an overall summary of the key findings from Study One and Study Two *will be presented. Each research question will be restated and results pertinent to that question will be highlighted. Path model propositions will also be addressed. 5 m Stud 0 e: O a s 0 'es It can be concluded that NOLS has some impact on students’ continued involvement in wilderness education, but not necessarily as leaders. The results from the oral histories revealed that everyone (n =19) continued to some degree in wilderness education activities after NOLS. Fifteen out of the nineteen people interviewed belonged to an outdoor or environmental organization. Just under half of the former students indicated that NOLS had an influence on their continued involvement in wilderness education activities. These findings also support the long-term effects of a wilderness course on leadership development. Approximately 84% of the students relied on feedback to guide their performance on the course. Overall, feedback appeared to be an important element for most students although, it may be more salient for those students who initially had little experience in the outdoors. The results indicated that those with little experience relied on feeedback more than those with more experience. Over a 128 1:hird of those students interviewed did not particularly (:are from whom they received feedback, although some paid Inore attention to the Course Leader (CL). Some appreciated ‘the feedback more when it was positive, and one student in particular would have found the feedback more worthwhile if it had been given from someone with whom she/he had connected. Ke¥_£inding§_£rgm.5tudv Tug Eesegngb Question ;. Does self-efficacy increase immediately after the completion of a wilderness course? What are the short-term effects of a wilderness course? In addressing this question, there were two significant findings. The first was in the control group. The purpose of this group was to assess the effects of anxiety on a student's self-efficacy. It was found that there was a significant increase (9 =.OOO) in self-efficacy scores when the factor of anxiety was controlled by measuring self- efficacy one month prior to participation in a wilderness course. In other words, students tend to perceive themselves to be more efficacious when the potential for anxiety is less. Although there may be other factors that impact upon the significant decrease in self-efficacy immediately before going in the field, this supports Koepke's (1973) findings that students tend to be more anxious just before they begin their wilderness course. 129 The second finding showed that the posttest time 1 self- efficacy scores were signficantly higher than the pretest :self-efficacy scores (9 =.000). This was primarily due to the drop in self-efficacy for women from control to pretest (See Question #3 for further discussion). Some of this may be due to the afterglow of the course and the good feelings derived from the accomplishments gained over the last month. This may have created a bias in the results similar to the effects that anxiety has on one’s self-efficacy. The increase in posttest time 1 self-efficacy may also be due to the intensity and daily exposure to many of the skills on a NOLS course included in the self-efficacy scale. Research Question 2. Does the increase in self-efficacy persist over time (what are the long-term effects of a wilderness course?). Self-efficacy scores were significantly lower at posttest time 2 (one year later) than at posttest time 1 (immediately after a course). This finding suggests that when skills and experiences are fresh and current, self- efficacy tends to be at its highest. Over the course of a year, when outdoor skills were likely to be less frequently used and condensed as compared to a 30-day wilderness course, self—efficacy decreased, but not to the level the students experienced when they began the wilderness course. Since posttest time 2 self-efficacy scores remained significantly higher than control or pretest groups, one can 130 (:onclude that the self-efficacy scores persist over time, and therefore provide some indication that the NOLS «experience provided an avenue for increasing one's self- efficacy in wilderness education. Furthermore, these results imply that students, particularly female students, need to keep actively and consistently involved to maintain self-efficacy. se ti Are there differences between female and male self-efficacy scores? The only significant gender difference in self-efficacy scores was found in the pretest measures where males had significantly higher self-efficacy scores than females (3 =.000). There were no significant differences in self- efficacy levels between females and males at posttest time 1 or 2. .Precourse anxiety potentially explains the pretest difference. Female and male self-efficacy scores were not different when assessed 1 month prior (control group). This suggests that female self-efficacy may tend to be more affected by anxiety than male self-efficacy. Another explanation for pretest differences may be that given a stressful situation, females may underestimate their abilities and rate themselves conservatively on their abilities to perform a task. On the other hand, males may overestimate their abilities and give themselves a generous 131 rating of their ability to perform a task during stressful and anxious situations. . This difference in self-efficacy between females and males immediately before the course may also have been influenced by the kinds of tasks that were about to be performed. Since the self-efficacy scale consisted of wilderness tasks which tend to be more socially defined as male oriented (i.e., tasks requiring physical strength), a female’s perception of her ability to perform such tasks may have decreased her confidence immediately prior to the course. A third explanation involves females acting more intuitive while males tend to be more action/task oriented. According to Perrier (1992), males tend to take a course of action without really taking into consideration their intuition about their action. In other words, males tend to be less connected with their socioemotional selves. On the other hand, females tend to intuit their behaviors and are more conservative in perceiving their actions. In relating this information to the study results, the control group may have offered females the time as well as absence of anxiety to cognitively and intuitively think through their perceptions of their ability to perform a task. This more inherent and instinctive ability to first intuit tasks and experiences may be part of the reason for feeling more efficacious than males in the control group and less 132 efficacious in the pretest group. Women and men employ different strategies to cope with different and stressful situations. For example, males instinctively are less inclined to take the time to intuit their ability to perform a task. Men tend to be more task oriented and consequently become more immediately involved in the task (Appling, 1989). Therefore, they have less time to become anxious. Thus, for them, anxiety may not directly effect their level of self-efficacy as much as it does females. o 05' ' ns. The five path model propositions and their key findings are repeated here. In addition, Questions 4 & 5 will be addressed as they related to these five propositions. 1. Leadership development is directly and positively influenced by self-efficacy. The path coefficients between self-efficacy and leadership development shown in the full hypothesized model (Figure 9) and in the female and male hypothesized models (Figures 10 and 11) were positive and thus in the direction predited by the literature. This indicates that leadership development is positively influenced by self-efficacy. 2. Self-efficacy is positively influenced by goal attainment, mentoring and feedback. Figure 9 reveals that self-efficacy was positively influenced by goal attainment, mentoring and feedback. In 133 Figure 10, self-efficacy was negatively influenced by immediate feeback for females (B =-.O1), yet mentoring significantly influenced female self-efficacy (fi =.19). Figure 11 illustrates that goal attainment had a negative influence on female self-efficacy (3 =-.05), and immediate feedback had a strong influence on male self-efficacy (3 =.25). Although the sample as a whole supported Bandura's (1986) research on the positive impacts that feedback and goal attainment have on self-efficacy, this study did not indicate support when the sample was divided between females and males. If Bandura had considered gender, there may have been different results in his research. 3. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are not related to each other. There was a significant relationship between goal attainment and mentoring (; =.21), with positive correlations in evidence between mentoring and indirect feedback, mentoring and immediate feedback, mentoring and positive feedback, and mentoring and amount of direct and indirect feedback. Relationships between goal attainment and the feedback variables were either negative, or close to zero. The positive relationships that occurred among goal attainment, feedback and mentoring supports the literature that describes goal attainment and feedback as positive 134 components of a mentoring process (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992). 4. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are the only predictors of self-efficacy. The results revealed that goal attainment, mentoring and feedback explained some of the variance in predicting self-efficacy (B:==.08). However, these variables explained 34% of the variance for females and 9% for males indicating that the hypothesized model is a stronger predictor of leadership development for females than males. Mentoring explained most of the variance for females (23%) which indicates that goal attainment and feedback do not explain much variance for either gender. There is a need to consider and include other factors that can impact self- efficacy. 5. Goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are not direct predictors of leadership development. The full hypothesized model (Figure 9) revealed that goal attainment, mentoring and feedback are better predictors of self-efficacy than leadership development. However, for females, mentoring had a significant path coefficient (3 =.37) with leadership development, indicating a direct influence. Again, this result reveals the significance mentoring has not only on a female's self- efficacy but also on her development as a leader. Since 135 mentoring reflects a more relational element, this supports Luna & Cullen's (1990) research that women seek interaction and the opportunity to share experiences. Beeearen Questien 5, Do higher levels of feedback, goal attainment, and mentoring show a positive relationship with self-efficacy? Positive feedback, immediate feedback, and mentoring were significantly and positively correlated with self- efficacy (; =.246, 1 =.211, ; =.231, respectively). After partialling out the effects of positive and immediate feedback, mentoring (B =.19) had a positive influence on a person’s level of self-efficacy. This was followed by positive feedback (B =.16) and immediate feedback (3 8.14). Goal attainment revealed little influence (3 =.05) on self- efficacy. The findings were more revealing when the sample was divided by gender. For female students, mentoring (B =.38), positive feedback (B =.21), and goal attainment (B =.24) were the strongest predictors of self-efficacy. Unlike the findings in the overall sample, immediate feedback (3 =-.01), was a weak indicator of female self-efficacy. These results show that females rely on mentoring relationships, specifically when those relationships can provide an avenue for positive feedback. There was also a significantly positive correlation (; =.213) between 136 mentoring and goal attainment. Although not tested in this model, it is possible that mentoring leads to higher goal attainment, and together lead to an increased level of self- efficacy. In the male population, immediate feedback was the only strong indicator of higher self-efficacy (g =.29). The remaining variables had very little, if any, impact on the male students' reported self-efficacy (path coefficients were all less than .081). Since males have been found to be more task oriented (Appling, 1989) than females, perhaps their success in a task provides them with sufficient immediate feedback to boost their self-efficacy. s s 5 Is there a positive relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development? For the overall population sampled, the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development (continuous involvement in wilderness education activities) was positive (; =.155). Furthermore, self-efficacy had a positive influence on leadership development (3 8.15), although not significantly so. In the female sample, self-efficacy immediately after the course had very little impact on one’s leadership development (5 =.008). However, one year after students completed the course, findings showed that leadership 137 development had a significant impact on female self-efficacy (B 8.45, p =.02). This may indicate that it is only after females have affirmed their development as a leader (through continuous involvement in wilderness education activities) that they feel self-efficacious. Thus, the process of leadership development enhances female self-efficacy. Unlike females, male reported self-efficacy immediately following the course had a strong impact on leadership development (5 =.39). However, self-efficacy one year after the course, had less impact on leadership development (3 =.11). Because males are more task oriented, they may not require continuous involvement in wilderness education activities to augment their self-efficacy. Rather, males may feel efficacious after a single NOLS course. It is this perceived self-efficacy that encourages them to develop their leadership potential. Lastly, these findings revealed that self-efficacy not only had an overall positive, nonsignificant relationship with leadership development, but that leadership development also had a positive effect on self-efficacy for females. The only significant impact found was the impact that female self-efficacy (one year later) had on leadership development (B 8.45, p =.02). Since self-efficacy has an impact on leaderhip development and leadership development has an impact on self-efficacy, this suggests that the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership development may not be 138 linear but rather dynamic, continuous and cyclical. Future research on the recursive nature (two-way causal flow) of this relationship is recommended. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to draw conclusions from the major findings and discuss the implications of this study. The first section entails a discussion of changes in self—efficacy over time as well as gender differences that exist between female and male self-efficacy levels. Throughout this first section, the emphasis will be on clarifying the outdoor leadership development process. The next section will provide some implications of this research for wilderness educators. The third section, study limitations, assesses ways in which study reliability and validity were impacted. The last section will provide direction for future research on outdoor leadership and wilderness education. Conclusions From Major Findings One of the outcomes that is assumed to result from participating in wilderness education courses is leadership. For example, the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) hopes that students continue their involvement in wilderness 139 140 education in the future, yet there has been no assurance that it occurs. The purpose of this research was to identify those factors which contributed to leadership development in wilderness education. There were three objectives: a)to assess the short and long-term effects of self-efficacy on leadership development; b)to evaluate gender differences in self-efficacy and in outdoor leadership development; c)to propose and evaluate a path model of outdoor leadership development. This section will indicate the extent to which these objectives were achieved and how this information will enhance the body of knowledge on outdoor leadership. To evaluate these objectives, the six most significant findings from this study and their respective conclusions are discussed below. ,. . ,. ,. 7 - _,. - -,u - ; . ; - In the short-term,self-efficacy scores were significantly higher immediately after the wilderness course. This effect was not a surprise since students were engaged in wilderness tasks and activities continually throughout a 23 or 30 day period. These results indicate that experience, opportunities to expand knowledge and skills in the outdoors can enhance one's self-efficacy in ‘wilderness education activities. Formal outdoor education 141 programs can be an effective vehicle for developing leadership. - - E ts O S 1 -E One year after their NOLS course, students’ self- efficacy scores dropped significantly yet continued to persist at a significantly higher level than their pretest self-efficacy scores. Thus, it is important to continue involvement in wilderness education activities as defined in this study. However, at this point, it is unknown which activities are more important than others in developing higher degrees of self-efficacy. ,- . ,9 ,. - -,.; . - -, -; ', ; - Gender differences were most evident in pretest measures as males had significantly higher self-efficacy scores than females. However, there was no difference between female and male self-efficacy at posttest time 1 and posttest time 2. One of the explanations posited for the significant gender differences found during the pretest is the level of anxiety students feel before they begin a wilderness course. Anxiety effects will be further discussed in the Major Finding #6 paragraph (pp. 149). 142 o ' 4 - e e c od Although wilderness education outcomes (i.e., improved self-esteem, leadership) provide a foundation for supporting the benefits of a wilderness education program, the literature identified the need to investigate the process by which desired outcomes on a wilderness course are achieved (Klint, 1990). The third objective of this study was to identify the process by which the outcome of leadership development was obtained. The proposed process was identified by a review of three bodies of literature and relevant theories. Four variables were selected to investigate the process of leadership development through the use of path analysis. Goal attainment, feedback, and mentoring were supported in the literature as having positive influences on self-efficacy, and self-efficacy was supported as a correlate of leadership development. Leadership development was operationalized in this research to indicate continued involvement in wilderness education. It is important to recognize that this research was concerned with the "process" toward leadership rather than defining who is and is not an outdoor leader. The full leadership model examined self-efficacy and leadership development linkages via path analysis. About 9% of the variance was explained by the three independent variables and self-efficacy with regard to their influence on leadership development. The new respecified model 143 eliminated the link between goal attainment and self- efficacy, thus creating a more parsimonious model of leadership development. However, neither the hypothesized or the respecified model resulted in significant goodness of fit ratios. Thus, Major Finding 4 is that neither model did a complete job of predicting leadership development. The path coefficient between self-efficacy and leadership development was positive indicating that self-efficacy had a positive, yet nonsignificant impact on leadership development. When dividing the sample by gender, self- efficacy was positive but still nonsignificantly related to leadership development for females and males. Since the variables in the full model explained little variance (9%) and since the goodness of fit ratio of the model was nonsignificant (E =.65), there is a need to investigate other variables and/or new measures that minimize the error in regression and enhance understanding of the leadership development process. Gender is one such variable that should be included in the path model. Leadership development was found to have a positive impact on self-efficacy (one year later). This suggests that self-efficacy may not function merely as a means to leadership development (i.e., recursive relationship) but rather may operate in a cyclical manner whereby leadership development and self-efficacy impact each other in a continuous process. This result provides justification for 144 future research on the nonrecursive relationship between leadership development and self-efficacy. The proposed path model did a much better job of describing the process for females, especially via the influence of mentoring and goal attainment. The process of analyzing the model was conducted in two stages. The first stage analyzed the impact the three independent variables (e.g., goal attainment, feedback and mentoring) had on self- efficacy. The second stage analyzed the full model and investigated the relationship self-efficacy had on leadership development. In the first stage mentoring was a significant determinant of female self-efficacy. For males, immediate feedback became the most significant indicator of self- efficacy. These results imply that females rely on mentoring relationships to boost their self-efficacy whereas males find that the immediate engagement in a task provided them the self-feedback needed to increase self-efficacy. It is important to acknowledge that feedback is also received from instructors and other group members. Since there was a higher percentage of male versus female instructors, male instructors may give different forms of feedback to their male students than their female students. This may have resulted in women seeking more female mentoring and males 145 counting more on immediate feedback from their male instructor. In the second stage, female self-efficacy was found to have a positive yet weak impact on leadership development. Male self-efficacy was found to have a stronger impact on leadership development than males, yet nonsignificantly so. The only factor that had a direct and significant impact on female leadership development was mentoring (B =.37). As an overall evaluation of Objective 3 (path model development), there was some success in capturing part of the process toward leadership development. Specifically, the proposed model in Figure 6 explained 9% of the variance in self-efficacy. This supports Bandura's findings (1986) and collectively, feedback, goal attainment and mentoring appeared to be positive indicators of self-efficacy. Future models need to include additional factors and improve measurement of existing ones. The path model worked especially well for females (i.e., explained more variance). Furthermore, since gender became a salient factor in measuring leadership development in this study, it needs to be included in future models. Wm The literature revealed that anxiety often experienced before a student begins her/his wilderness course can bias one's self-efficacy (Koepke, 1973). This study supported 146 Koepke’s findings. Both females and males had significantly higher scores when their self-efficacy was assessed one month prior to their course. However, females had significantly lower self-efficacy scores than males immediately before their NOLS course. Since the only significant difference between female and male self-efficacy was found in the pretest measure, one may conclude that anxiety existed before the start of a course and that females appear to have been more affected by it than males. Other reasons for the differences may be: 1. Females underestimate their abilities to perform a task and males overestimate their abilities; 2. The heightened anxiety experienced by females may be due to the social construct of the environment (e.g., engagement in a task or experience involving strength and conveying male dominance). In other words, females' perception of themselves as less efficacious in male dominated tasks can create anxiety. W In sum, this research supported the need to assess the process of leadership development as a valid way to understanding leadership as an outcome. It is difficult to develop leadership if the factors that influence the process are unknown. Since self-efficacy was found to have a weak influence on leadership development, it is important to 147 further investigate other factors (i.e., residuals) that are not included in the model, but which may impact leadership development. Moreover, the results of this research were intended to create linkages between the bodies of knowledge concerning leadership, outdoor leadership and self-efficacy. Situational leadership was assessed by investigating the demographic and situational characteristic of gender. The degree of involvement in wilderness activities after a course was an indication of becoming an outdoor leader. Involvement was evaluated by investigating a student's skills, knowledge and experience before and after a wilderness course. In essence, there were no significant increases in a student's involvement in skills and attending conferences and workshops one year later. However, there was a significant increase in the number of students leading outdoor/adventure trips after NOLS, especially for females (p =.008). It appears that NOLS had a greater impact on the number of trips led by women than on continuing their involvement in wilderness skills, conferences and workshops. It is important to consider and evaluate the process of leadership, as it was found to be different between females and males. 148 Implications for Wilderness Educators The results of this research indicate that given certain conditions, students will continue their involvement in certain wilderness education activities after their NOLS experience. Continued involvement in wilderness courses contributes to self-efficacy in wilderness tasks, particularly for women. This, in turn, may provide the motivation to continue participation in wilderness education activities. NOLS and other wilderness education programs can benefit from the results of this study by re-examining their own process of developing leaders. The following recommendations are offered to help guide wilderness educators in their attempts to improve students' development as leaders. Perhaps, the most important finding was that the process of leadership development was different for women than men. The literature supplied a plethora of information regarding differences in female and male characteristics (Appling, 1989; Matlin, 1987; Warren, 1985). It is important to be aware of these characteristic differences (e.g., females learn by observation first, males learn by doing first) and provide a variety of teaching methods that would enable the greatest potential for leadership development to occur for each gender. It is recommended to incorporate classes into instructor's courses that help sensitize instructors to the differences between females and 149 males in their development as confident persons and competent leaders in wilderness education. Furthermore, providing ongoing workshops and seminars concerned with ways to improve leadership potential for both genders would also be helpful. A notable difference between females and males was seen in their responses to mentoring. While mentoring contributed to improving students’ self-efficacy, it was more significant for females than males. This indicated that providing mentoring relationships more consistently as part of the NOLS curriculum may enhance self-efficacy, thus increasing the potential for leadership development. While NOLS instructors provide some one-on-one guidance.and sharing of goals with students, this research points to the need for an increase in these interactions. Furthermore, offering more opportunities for females to participate in all-women courses may provide the environment and experience that fosters a greater potential for natural mentoring to occur. According to Luna & Cullen (1990), this opportunity can have an impact on future success. This research also reveals that the type of feedback given to students throughout a wilderness course is important. Although both positive and immediate feedback contribute to one’s self-efficacy, positive feedback was more important for females. Conversely, immediate feedback was more significant for males. Thus, instructors and 150 wilderness educators need to provide both types of feedback. It is also important that the positive and immediate feedback given to students is not only accurately provided (evaluate things that have been observed) but that it remains continuous throughout a course. Finally, wilderness educators need to be cognizant of the fact that anxiety is experienced by many students, particularly females, immediately prior to the commencement of a wilderness course. Although NOLS instructors provide some degree of one-on-one guidance and feedback with students, it is suggested that this continue to a larger degree. Because anxiety appears to affect a student’s self- efficacy, educators must implement ways to reduce that anxiety, especially for females. One way to accomplish this is to insure that each student is given the opportunity to share information about themselves (i.e., goals, fears, etc.) with another instructor in the first few days of the course. This one-on-one time with students, particularly females, may reduce the effects of anxiety on their self- efficacy. Deemphasizing strength and emphasizing judgment (skills, knowledge and experience) as a means to successful outdoor leadership may provide students, particularly women, a more attainable and realistic goal of leadership development in wilderness education as well as reduce the anxiety experienced before a course. 151 Limitations of the Study There were a number of threats to internal and external validity of this study. The quasi-experimental nonequivalent control group design tends to control for all but three threats to internal validity. Below is a brief discussion of the three threats in this research. 1. Seleetien_§iee; Subjects were not randomly selected but rather pre-selected based on type of course and time of course. In other words, the sample was not a probability sample that was randomly selected. In this situation, certain types of people may select a particular type of course which may have affected the overall measurement. Students who take the Outdoor Educator’s courses opposed to Wind River Wilderness course may differ demographically, thus creating a bias in the selection of courses. It may be more valid to assess results relating to one type of course rather than examining three different course types. 2. Inetnumentetien_fiiee; Scaling problems are usually more revealing the more nonequivalent (nonrandom) the experimental groups (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). Although weak variable measurements in the 1992 data collection instruments (e.g., feedback, mentoring and goal attainment) are changed in the 1993 survey, the validity of the composite goal attainment variable is still in question. 152 Due to little variance in the goal attainment results (i.e., most students attain their goals), goal attainment may need to be measured differently to solicit greater variances in the answer. Another measurement error occurred in the posttest time 2 survey. Students were asked to recall what their involvement was in wilderness education and leadership development activities before they came to NOLS. The data would have been more valid and less subject to recall bias if that question was asked in the pretest measurement, before a student started the NOLS course. Since gender was a salient component to the leadership development process, failure to include it in the path model was a limitation to the study. By including gender in the model, more variance may have been explained. The oral histories may be more supportive of the survey data, if they were conducted prior to starting the construction and administration of the quantitative portion of the research. Due to time constraints of the research study, oral histories could not be obtained before the administration of the surveys. In this manner, the quantitative surveys may have been built, more than they were, upon the results and information gathered in the oral histories. In addition, the inconsistent method in which the information was obtained (telephone vs. face-to-face) 153 may create a response error and affect the depth to which people respond. 3. Meteretien egg History Bias; Due to the longitudinal nature (e.g., maturation) of the design between posttest time 1 and posttest time 2, subjects may change their views and thoughts based on biological as well as intellectual maturation over the course of a year. Furthermore, external stimuli (e.g., home, school environment, working environment) and exposure to their perspective locations (i.e., history), may also affect measurement in the posttest time 2 survey. Although there was some control over history and maturation effects through the acknowledgement of activities students participated in over the course of a year, these effects were not entirely controlled. There was no second control group measure as is typically the case in a non-equivalent control group design (Figure 4). This prevents the conclusion that NOLS was the sole source of enhanced self-efficacy and leadership development. W 1. -.: . ' :35 i 1_ oss W ,o- .e B-u . '., ° .. =u“ The target population assessed in this study involved subjects participating in wilderness education programs whose primary mission is leadership development. Although some of the results may be applicable and generalizable to 154 other wilderness education programs that have similar structures and missions to NOLS, these results may not be as valid or reliable due to the type of student (e.g., socioeconomic status, region of the country) involved in the program. Differences in the population sample may result in unreliable measures. The sample results can only safely generalize to certain NOLS courses due to the uniqueness of the mission and structure of the program. 2. e a ' b' 't 055 OLS courses: Although each course selected for this study had characteristics similar to those of all NOLS courses, there may be enough variation to question the generalizability of results to all NOLS students. Recommendations for Future Research This research extends the discussion of leadership development. Because the process of leadership development is continuous, further discussion should be representative of this process. This final section contains eight recommendations for future research, stimulated by the instrumentation, administration and results conducted in this study. 1. Since the total variance in the full hypothesized path model of leadership development explains less than 10% of the variance from the pre-selected variables, further 155 investigation of additional variables from some of the other 90% is needed. Bandura (1977, 1986) addresses the impact that performance attainment has on self-efficacy. Performance attainment and other residual variables such as age and age differentiation between instructor and student, experience level and self-efficacy level before a wilderness course may provide a greater explanation of the variables that contribute to self-efficacy after a wilderness course and the overall leadership development process. Furthermore, gender may also be a factor that would explain more variance in the model. Gender was not included in the model because it was not found in Bandura’s (1986) research to be a factor contributing to self-efficacy or a factor that would appear to impact the process toward leadership development. 2. Because mentoring was a strongindicator of self- efficacy and leadership development, especially for females, additional examination of the relationship that mentoring has on leadership development would be beneficial. Conducting indepth interviews with students in outdoor leadership positions may help to develop better measures of mentoring and provide results that further support the influence of mentoring on self-efficacy and leadership development. 3. Since the process of developing leadership was different for females and males, designing a study that 156 specifically investigates how the gender of leaders effects the performance and leadership outcomes of students would be helpful. Do female leaders have different effects (e.g., building confidence, developing skills, learning about leadership) on female students than they do on male students? Do male leaders have different effects on male students than they would with female students? Because this study does not assess the impact of same-sex mentors and proteges, other studies suggest that female mentors with female protege’s may enhance self-efficacy levels of women participants (Luna & Cullen, 1990). Providing more female instructors as mentors and role models may encourage more female students to pursue leadership in wilderness education. 4. While this study looked specifically at the process of leadership development, how established leaders/instructors maintain their leadership skills over time remains unexplored. 5. NOLS is not only interested in training outdoor leaders but is also interested in providing leadership skills and experiences that are transferable to other fields and disciplines. It may be worthy to assess a variety of common leadership characteristics and abilities and measure them similarly to how self-efficacy was measured in this study. This leadership measurement would provide a personal perception of one’s ability as a leader before and after a 157 course. Providing a one-year followup may help assess how the leadership skills gained from a wilderness course have been exercised in other situations or jobs. 6. This study showed that anxiety may deflate a student’s self-efficacy immediately prior to a course, particularly for females. Similar research needs to explore if the exhilaration often experienced by students after a course falsely inflates a student’s self-efficacy immediately after a course. 7. In determining whether NOLS develops high quality leaders in wilderness education, additional explorations in this area would be helpful. Further research needs to employ the measurement of leadership development defined by this study to compare those people in wilderness education who have not participated in a NOLS course with leaders who have been trained by NOLS. This would show if the self- efficacy and leadership abilities of both NOLS and non-NOLS leaders in wilderness education differ. 8. Past studies have investigated the mediating effects (relationship between a predictor and a criterion variable) between self-efficacy and perceived control (Litt, 1988; Schiaffino & Revenson, 1992). Because the literature demonstrates how these two variables work in concert with each other, it would be beneficial to examine the combined effects of self-efficacy and perceived control on leadership development. This study contains a measure of perceived 158 control, but the scale items are not specific to the situation (i.e., a NOLS course), and thus are not directly compared to the self-efficacy scale results. Conclusion This research offers wilderness educators and researchers greater insight into the process by which outdoor leadership is obtained. The findings provided a strong foundation for further investigation into additional antecedent variables that influence leadership development. Such research will help both course instructors and academicians to better understand the complex and dynamic process of leadership development for both women and men participating in wilderness education. LIST OF REFERENCES Achen, C. (1982). Interprering and nsing regressien. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Staristical metnode fer rne eeciel seiences. (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Dellen Publishing Company. Allen S. (1987). Risk recreation: A literature review and conceptual model. In J. Meier, T. Morash, & G. Welton. (Eds.), flign-egvenrure enrdoor nnrsuits. (pp. 93-130). Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, Inc. Appling, L. (1989, Sept.). Women and leadership. 0 t e a Out Leade s c 53211.92nf2rence (pp- 9-12)- Lander. WY- Averill, J.R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychelogieel Bulletin. (e9, 286-303. Babbie, B. (1989). e ac ce 0 s c‘a esea . (5th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bahniuk, M. Dobos, J., 8 Hill, S. (1990). The impact of mentoring, collegial support, and information adequacy on career success. Jou Soc’ av' a Eereonality, 5(4), 431-451. .Baker, E.D. (1975). c e i e e 5 ° ' a effecred ny perticination in basic ceurses at the Earlenel Qnrgeer Leadersnip Scnool. Unpublished master’s thesis, Penn State University, State College, PA. Bandura, A. (1977a). Self- efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change- £_xshglegigal_3exiex. 91. 191-212. Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hill. 159 160 Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. geurna a; ef Personality and Seeiei .EEXEDQLQQX 11(3). 585 593- Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluating and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Jeurnai ef Berseneiiry eng fiesial_£§xghelegx. 15(5). 1017-1028. Bandura, A. (1986). c un a ' o t a2ti2n1_a_sgeial_22gnitixe_thegrx. New Jersey: Prentice- 3111. Bauman, L., & Greenberg, E. (1992). The use of ethnographic interviewing to inform questionnaire construction. fleeltn Edueetion Querterly, ig(1), 9-23. Beeler, C. (1988). Teaching tomorrow’s leaders through mentoring. Perk and Recreation. July, 40-42. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a lender. New York: Addison- Wesley Company, Inc. Berry. W-. & Feldman. 8- (1988). Multiple_regres§ign_in preerie_. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Bolton, E. (1980). A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in the career development of women. 5921; Edueatien. 19(4). 195-207- Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1989). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. Journal of Seciei E§¥£h212917 119(3). 353-363- Bova, B. M, & Phillips, R. (1982). Tne mentoring rel_t12nshin_as_an_edueatignal_exe_ri_nee Paper presented at the National Conference of Adult Education, San Antonio, TX. Boyle, R. (1971L Path analysis and ordinal data. In H. M. Blalock (Ed. ), Ca 5 s ' t soc' eeienee_. (pp. 432- ~452). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Brody, E., Hatfield, B., & Spalding, T. (1988). Generalizations of self-efficacy to a continuum of stressors upon mastery of a high-risk sport skill. I9uInal_9f_éesrt_£§xsnelegx. 12. 32-44- 161 Cain, K.D. (1985). Wilderness education association certification. In J. Miles 8 R. Watters (Eds.), s the 1984 Confe ence 0 Cu doo ec (pp. 53-61). Pocatello: Idaho State University Press. Cain, K., 8 McAvoy, L. (1991). Experience-based judgment. In J. Miles 8 S. Priest (Eds.), ngvenrure egneerien (pp. 241-250). State College, PA, Venture Publishing. Campbell. D.T-. & Stanley (1978). Ernerimental_and_gua§i_ experimenrel gesigns {or researen. Chicago: Rand McNally College publishing Company. , Collins, J-L- (1982)- 5elf:effisasx_and_abili£1_in aghiexemeat_behaxigr. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NY. Cook. T. & Campbell. 0. (1979). Quasizereerimenratien1_ Design 8 anelysis issues for fielg sertings. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin Company. Davis, J. (1985). The logie of causal erder. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: Tne torel geeign_nerneg. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Dzewaltowski, D., Noble, J., 8 Shaw, J. (1990). Physical activity participation: Social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Jenrnel er Spprt and Exercise gsyenelogy, l2, 388-405. Easley, A.T. (1985). The persenaliry treits er yilderneee leedersnip instructors at NOLS: the relationship 39 perceived instructor effectiveness and the developmenr e: eelfi-eoncept in students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Easley, A.T. (1991). Programmed, non-clinical skill development benefits of leisure activities. In B.L. Driver, P. Brown, 8 G. Peterson (Eds.), Benefit§_2f ‘leienre. (pp. 145-156). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Ellis, G.D., 8 Witt, P.A. (1984). The measurement of perceived freedom in leisure. Jenrnel of Leisnre MED. ;§(2)I 110-1230 162 Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure ursui s: oundat s nedelsl and tneories. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, Inc. Ewert, A., 8 Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Researcn, 2;, 124-139. Fairholm, G. (1991). Values leadersnip: Toward a new pnilesopny e: leadersnip. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Feltz, D. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Persenaliry eng Social Psychology, e2, 764-781. Feltz, D., 8 Mugno, D. (1983). A replication of the path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy and the influence of autonomic perception. Qenrnel of Sport Psycnology, 5, 263-277. Perrier, L. (1992). Dance 0; tne selves: Uniting tne nale eng fiemale witnin. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Ford, P., 8 Blanchard, J. (1985). Leadership ang enministretion of outdoor pursuits. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Gaskill, L. (1991). Same-sex and cross-sex mentoring of female proteges: A comparative analysis. T C e Qevelepnent Quarterly, AQ(1), 48-63. Gorrell, J., 8 Capron, E. (1987). Effects of instructional type and feedback on prospective teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Ine Journal of Experimentel Educatien, §§(1), 120-123. Green, P. (1990). Outdoor leadership preparation. In J. Miles 8 S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure educari n. (pp. 217- 220). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. HaCkett, G., 8 Betz, N.E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Jeurnal ef yeeetienel Benavior, lg, 326-339. Hershey, P., 8 Blanchard, K. (1982). Management or a a be vio : Ut' ' ' u an r sou e . (4th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 163 Hoff, A., 8 Ellis, G. (1992). Influence of agents of leisure socialization on leisure self-efficacy of university students. ou a o L 'su e s a , 11(2) , 114-126. Horgan, D., 8 Simeson, R. (1990). Gender, mentoring, and tacit knowledge. u S c' v' a W. 5(4) . 453-471. Hunt, J.S. (1984). Opinion: The dangers of substituting rules for instructor judgment in adventure programs. Jenrnel or Erperientiel Edncation, 1, 20-21. Hunter, J. (1987). Multiple dependent variables in program evaluation. In M. Mark, 8 R.L. Shotland (Eds.), unlriple nernegs in pregrem eveluation. (pp. 43-56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hunter, J. (1994). Personal communication with Dr. Hunter. Michigan State University. Jeruchim, J., 8 Shapiro, P. (1992). Women mentors a sneeess. New York: Ballantine Books; Random House, Inc. Kahn, S. (1989). The relationship of sdcioeconomic status and gender to the occupational choices of grade 12 students. qurnal of Voearional Behavier, 21, 161-178. Kallgren, D. (1991). Ine_Nerr_§rep. [Video]. Chicago, IL: Sedgwick Productions. ' Karmel, B. (1984). Leadership: A challenge to traditional research methods and assumptions. In W. Rosenbach, 8 R. Taylor (Eds.), Centemperary issues in leadersnip. (pp. 64-72). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Keppel, G. 8 Zedeck, S. (1989). Qera anelysis {er reeeeren geeign_. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. King, R. (1986). Women menrors as leeders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. Klint, K. (1990). New directions for inquiry into self- concept and adventure experiences. In J. Miles 8 S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education. (pp. 163-170). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Koepke, S.M. (1973). T e ects o Outwa u perrieiparion upon anriery and selr-concepr. Unpublished master’s thesis, Penn State University, State College, PA. 164 Kraus, R. (1985). Beereation leadership togay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Lenny, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement situations. Psycnolegieal Bulletin, 81, 1-13. Litt, M. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journel of 2ers2nalitx_and_§esial_£§xehglegx. 51(1). 149-160- Luna, G., 8 Cullen, D. (1990). An etnnogrephic conperieen me torin fu ct 5 women ' academe pnsinese. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Boston, MA. Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, M., Cooper, L., Testa, M., 8 Mueller, P. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Jenrnal pf Persenaliry and Sociel Psycnelogy, 52(3), 452- 463. March, B. (1987). A reply to Wilkinson’s comments. In J. Meier, T. Morash, 8 G. Welton. (Eds.), H - ursu'ts: O ' at' a d e s ' . (2nd. ed). (pp. 498,499). Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, Inc. Matlin. M- (1987)- The_2sxehelegx_2f_22men- Chieaqe. IL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. McAuley, E., 8 Gill, D. (1983). Reliability and validity of the physical self-efficacy scale in a competitive sport setting. qurnel pf Sperr Esyenology. 5. 410-418. McAvoy, L.H. (1980). Outdoor leadership training. In J. Meier, T. Morash, 8 G. Welton (Eds.), High adventure entgeer pursuits: Organization ang leadership. (pp. 116-123). Salt Lake City: Brighton Publishing Company. McGowan, M. (1986). Self-efficacy: Operationalizing challenge education. Bregforg gapers Annnel, l, 65-69. McNemar, Q. (1969). s 0 st t's 'cs. (4th ed). New York: Wiley. Miles, J. (1987). The problem of judgment in outdoor leadership. In J. Meier, T. Morash, 8 G. Welton (Eds.), High-adventnre ourgoor pursnirs; Qrganieerien eng_leegerenip. (2nd. ed). (pp. 502-509). Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, Inc. Norusis, M.J. (1988). $288 guide to data analysis fer fizfigfigi. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. 165 Pedhazur, E. (1982). 2nd Edition. ' e e s peneyierel_reeeer_n. Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Petersen, A.C. (1980). Biopsychosocial processes in the development of sex-related differences. In J.E. Parsons (Eds.), Ine psyenepiology pf een gififiereneee eng eer roles. (pp. 31-55). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Petruzzello, S. (1986). e e f ts o e o e - . Unpublished master’s thesis. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ. Petzoldt, P. (1971). ewb lm. [Video]. Lander, WY: NOLS Production. Petzoldt, P. (1974). The wilderness handbook. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. Petzoldt, P. (1984). Tne new wilderness handbeok. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. Phipps, M. 8 Swiderski, M. (1990). The "soft" skills of outdoor leadership. In Miles, J. 8 Priest, S. (Eds.), ngyenrnre_egneerien. (pp. 221-231). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Porthan, E. (1989). Coaching for growth: Providing effective feedback. Ereceedings e: tne Nerional Qurgeer Leedersnip Scnool Spar; Conferenee. Lander, WY. Priest, S. (1990). Outdoor leadership components. In J. Miles 8 S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education. (pp. 211- 215). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Ratz, J. (1991). nQLS interviews. [Video]. Chicago, IL: Sedgwick Productions. Ratz, J. (1992). ' de 5 ' s o 91.222rses- Lander. WY. Ragins, B.R., 8 McFarlin, D. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journel e: Voeerienel Benavior, l1, 321-339. Raiola, E. (1990). Outdoor leadership curricula. In J. Miles 8 S. Priest (Eds.), Advenrnre educetion. (pp. 234- 239). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Redmond, S. (1990). Mentoring and cultural diversity. Ameriean_flehaxieral_ésienti§t. 15(1). 188-200. 166 Rink, J. (1984). Elementary physicel educetien netnode. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Rink, J. (1985). c s' a edu at' o . St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. Rosenbach. W-. & Taylor. R- (1984)- genremperarx_i§sue§_in leegerenip. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Rosenbach, W., 8 Taylor, R. (1989). (2nd ed). genrenporery iesnes in leagership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Ruddy, S. (1991). Ine_nerr_erep. [Video]. Chicago, IL: Sedgwick Productions. Schiaffino, K., 8 Revenson, T. (1992). The role of perceived self-efficacy, perceived control, and causal attributions in adaptation to rheumatoid arthritis: Distingushing mediator from moderator effects. Eereenelit y en ng Sociel Eshyeelegy eu ullerin, 18(6), 709- 718. Schunk, D. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Edusarienal_£§x2hglegx. 12(1). 48-58. Shavelson, R. (1988). S st' as peneyierel_eeieneee. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Shin, W.S. (1988). e ' ue w' e s the eelf-aetualigation of tne students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Brunswick, Canada. Stogdill, R. (1974). db 0 ade 5 ' : s eneory eng researcn. New York, NY: The Free Press. Swiderski, M.J. (1981). Outdoor leadership competencies identified by outdoor leaders in five western states. t s s te t al, $2. 3753A. Tannenbaum,R. 8 Massarik, F. (1957). Leadership: A frame of reference. Menegemenr Scien e. 3. Taylor, K., 8 Popma, J. (1990). An examination of the relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. lenrnal pf Voeetional Behavier, Q1, 17-31. Thomas, S. (Comp.) (1985). ve e ' - pipliegrepny. Amherst, NY: Institute on Classroom Management and School Discipline at State University of New York at Buffalo. 167 Timmons, M. (1989). Leadership is our middle name: but how do we teach it at NOLS? Eroceedings of tne Netienel Qnrgoer Leadersnip School Staff Conference. Lander, WY. Turner, M. 8 Stevens, C. (1971). The regression equation of causal paths. In H.M. Blalock (Ed.), Qeusal nogele in the_sggial_seienses. (pp- 75-100). Chica90. IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Warren, K. (1985). Experiential education from the male and female point of view. Jou a eri Egneerien. Summer: 10-19. Warren, K. (1990). Women’s outdoor adventures. In J. Miles, 8 8- Priest (Ede-). Adrenture_edueatien- (pp- 411- 417). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Weinberg, R., Grove, R., 8 Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The Sperr Esycnelogist, 6. 3-13. Wilson, T. (1971). Critique of ordinal variables. In H.M. Blalock (Ed.), m de ‘ t e s ' c . (pp. 415-431). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Woolfolk, A., 8 Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Jenrnel_er Egneerional Psycnelogy, §;(1), 81-91. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensatio s in : e ond t ve a us . Hilsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Assoc. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Leadership According to NOLS NOLS believes the best leader is "the person who exercises the common sense and good judgment to help everyone travel safely and enjoyably through any terrain in all situations." (NOLS Catalog of Courses, 1992). The question that the staff and administration continually deliberate over is, "Does NOLS teach. leadership?" Although there are been people who have attempted to provide enlightened answers to that question (Timmons, 1989; Kallgren, 1991) through both verbal and written dialogue, the answer(s) remain(s) unsettled. It would appear appropriate for NOLS to make a strong affirmation that "YES, NOLS does teach leadership and here is the evidence to prove it." However, that is where the gap exists - there is no scientific evidence that leadership indeed is "taught" at NOLS. In fact there seems to be the opinion that leadership cannot be directly taught but rather indirectly learned experientially. Others have changed the verb from "taught" to "developed" which seems to be more broad-based and allows for more flexible methodology (Cain 8 McAvoy, 1990). Based on the core curriculum, NOLS uses the wilderness as a means to develop leadership by providing the opportunities to; 1) experience and develop outdoor skills 168 169 (campsite selection, shelter and stove use, fire-building, cooking, waste disposal, route finding and navigation, climbing, backpacking, fishing, etc.); 2) become more consciously aware and concerned about the environment through minimum-impact camping and resource protection techniques; 3) develop the knowledge of ecosystems, flora and fauna identification, geology, weather, etc.; 4) understand and experience the significance of safety and judgment in the wilderness, and 5) provide numerous opportunities to strengthen decision making and problem solving skills, expedition planning, and group dynamics. Through this curriculum, NOLS is committed to being the best source and teacher of leadership and wilderness skills. According to Timmons (1989), NOLS can teach students about leadership but can’t make them leaders. In other words, NOLS staff (instructors) can help students develop the tools and skills they deem necessary to be leaders. From that point on it is up to students as to how they use those skills to acquire the judgment needed to become competent outdoor leaders. Many of the skills are transferable to everyday life outside of the outdoor environment. It is hoped that students will continue to use the leadership skills in all facets of their life, including wilderness education, well after they have graduated from NOLS. APPENDIX B HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL "There is nothing more basic to the NOLS mission than taking a leadership role to influence the future of our environment. Our leadership should not just be reflected in the way we build our fires, but rather in the way we teach our students, support our programs, live our lives." (John Gans, 1989). Paul Petzoldt sensed that wilderness areas were going to become used more frequently and that the general public was going to continue to turn to outdoor and wilderness areas as an alternative yet challenging environment for pursuing outdoor recreation. He strongly felt the need to establish a school that would provide the opportunity to teach and educate people to use and enjoy the environment without harming it. He wanted to offer young people the opportunity to develop wilderness skills and values necessary to carry out a lifetime of recreation. Petzoldt believed that real life experiences in the wild outdoors provided a good foundation for developing judgment and leadership with the education of understanding ecology and conservation for the outdoors (Paul Petzoldt, 1971). NOLS instituted its’ first wilderness course on June 8, 1965. Forty male students arrived in Lander where they were issued supplies and equipment that would begin a 30 day adventure in the Wind River Mountains. The group was 170 171 divided into patrols of approximately twelve students each and were sent to various locations in the mountains. In 1966, the first women participated in courses. Primary courses (now called Adventure Courses) for 14 and 15 year old students began in 1967. By 1969, NOLS grew to 250 students. The greatest source of publicity for NOLS was (and continues to be) through word-of-mouth, although occasionally, NOLS has been highlighted nationally (Life Magazine (1969); Alcoa Hour (TV), (1970); Washington Post (1983); Backpacker Magazine (1983, 1985); American Country Magazine (1988); Trilogy Magazine (1991); Public Broadcasting System (PBS) (1991); and Outside Magazine (1992). During the years of 1970-1975, NOLS began to expand the program to include a branch in Washington (1971), Alaska (1971), Mexico (1971), and Africa (1974). In addition, the first mountaineering course, the first outdoor educator’s course, the first geology wilderness course, and the first winter instructor’s courses were underway. In 1975, Paul Petzoldt stepped down from Executive Director of NOLS and Peter Simer started his tenure at NOLS. The early 80’s marked the development of Instructor training seminars and. the publications of "Paul Petzoldt’s Wilderness Guide", "NOLS Cookery", and "The National Outdoor Leadership School’s Wilderness Guide." In 1984, Peter Simer left NOLS and was replaced by the current Executive Director, Jim Ratz. An alumni association and a scholarship fund was 172 established between 1984 and 1988 to bring graduates together and to offer financial assistance to those students less economically fortunate. Another international branch was established in Patagonia, Chile in 1989. Presently, India is being investigated as a proposed site for a new branch to open. India mountaineering courses began in 1991 and have been outfitted through the Pacific Northwest Branch. NOLS is the largest backcountry permit holder in the 0.8.. It accounts for more backcountry use (101,000 student days per year as of Sept. 1992) than any other organization. This high level of use coupled with its experience in leading outdoor skills are compelling reasons why the 0.8. Forest Service and The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now request NOLS’ input for wilderness management plans through the "Leave No Trace Program" (LNT). ORAL HISTORY INFORMATION APPENDIX C AND D 173 APPENDIX C ORAL HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE DATE OF INTERVIEH: AGE GENDER: F N PRESENT OCCLPATIOI on ”K: SINCE NOLS, NAS TNIS ALHAYS SEEN YGIR OCCIN’ATIW? IF NOT, DESCRIBE CHANGES. CGJRSE TYPE: fiC HIT WU CWRSE LENCTN CURSE DATES TO YEAR CURSE LOCATICNI INSTRUCTNS: F N DGI'T REIEIBER CURSE CNTENT AREAS Rockclilbing River crossingts) Peak ascents Other Fishing: Fly _ Spin _ Tyrolean traverse Snow Work (Self-arrest) Cooking and Baking _ Sull grow expedition (end of course walk out) WHAT HAS Yul! EXPERIENCE LEVEL BEFQE TllE CGRSE BEGAN? PLEASE DESCRIBE: Introchctory Developental Coni tnent lntrochctory: participants have little or no experience with any fore of adventure recreation activity. Minimal skills are needed and control rests largely with a designated leader and a set of structured procechares. Developent: participants have some previous experience and are interested in further involvement. Skills are still relatively undeveloped. Grow leaders or instructors may be present to teach skills and insure safety. Couiteent: participants have high level skills, experience, and emit-ant to the activity. Participants at this level are prepared to face substantial risks in an enviroment that is wild and often upredictable. 174 OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 1. What were some of your reasons in taking a NOLS course? 2. have or are you involved in any outdoor organizations? Yes No 2a. If yes, which organizations? 2b. What is your extent of involvement in each (e.g., member only, volunteer, board member ,etc.) Now much time per eonth? Orgmization Involve-ant tiee/eonth 3. Do you feel your involvement is a result of having participated in NOLS? Yes No why or why not? 4. Have you participated in outdoor adventure activities since your course? Yes No be. if yes, which activities have you participated in most frequently? 4b. Now much do you participate in the following activities? Freq. lnfreq. Never Backpacking lockclimbing Mountaineering fishing (specify fly or spin) Camping Snow work Canoeing (specify whitewater or flatwater) Kayaking Rafting Skiing (specify cross country or downhill) Other 5. Would you describe your performance in technical skills on your NOLS course? 6. Would you describe your performance in leadership skills on your NOLS course? 7. To what degree did you rely on feedback to guide your performance throughout the course? 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 175 Did it make a difference from whom you received feedback? Were you generally satisfied with the NOLS experience? What did you like least about your NOLS experience? What did you like most about your NOLS experience? What has kept you from participating in NOLS again? Would you participate in another NOLS course if you could? Would you encourage others to take a NOLS course? Why or why not? Have you encouraged others to take a NOLS course? is there anything else you would like to tell me about your NOLS experience? 176 APPENDIX D MAL NISTmY RESULTS Year Age Gender 8 Female lnstr. N Nale Instr. Exper. I 1 WM! 1991 22 Male 0 3 Dev. 2 DEC 1991 37 Female 1 2 Cam. I 1 3 WIT 1987 26 Female 2 1 Dev. I I 6 WHY 1989 27 Female 0 3 Dev. [5 1811 1991 23 Female 0 3 Dev. I 6 WMT 1988 24 Male 1 2 Dev. I 7 WMT 1987 24 Female 1 2 Dev. 8 DEC 1988 28 Female 2 1 Com. I 9 DEC 1987 39 Female 1 2 Dev. I 10 fiC 1988 64 Male 1 2 Dev. 11 DEC 1988 48 Male 2 1 Dev. I 12 DEC 1988 38 Male 1 2 Com. I 13 DEC 1991 26 Male 2 1 Dev. I 14 WRW 1991 20 Female 1 2 intro. I 15 WNW 1991 25 Male 1 2 Con. 16 WRW 1991 20 Female 1 2 Dev. F 17 WRW 1987 27 Male 1 2 Dev. 18 WRW 1989 21 Male 1 2 Dev. 19 WRW 1988 21 Female 1 2 Dev.1--J WNY Nean Age I 20.8 DEC Nean Age - 33.8 WRW Neon Age - 19.8 Overall Mean Age I 25.3 177 Tw’. 1 Course Loc. Month Present Past involve in Types of ' Occupation Occup. Out. Organiz. ......___.1 1 1 Winds Aug. Cook Student - NO Econ. June/July Student Student YES Sierra, NO Inside 9!! July Production Student - NO Potter Soc. June/July Student - Retail- YES Summit MO Law Outdoor Mag., Sierra June/July Sports Student- YES Outside NO Marketing Econ. Mag. Firm June/July Electronic Student YES Boyscouts NO Bus. - Assnt. Leader 1 I June Physical Retail and YES Nat’l YES, to i Therapy Aid Sales Parks 8 a y Cons. degree. Assoc., Nat’l Wildlife Fed. June/July Library Sign Lang. YES Sierra, N0, but Technician lnterp Colo. Mtn. added Club to CO... level July Teacher- 1st Same YES Sierra, NO grade Green : Peace, I Western ‘ Colo. 1 Cong. I July/Aug Reg. Nurse 8 Same NO NO E Episc. Minis. July Teacher - Same YES AEE, YES Nigh Explorers School Post, local travel team . July Apt. Manager Carpenter, YES Wandering YES, ‘ Student Wheels j P.E. ; Aug. Student - Hardware :55 Outside YES, '~ P.E. 8 Store Mag., Absolut Rancher Advent. ely Club I July Student Same YES Outside YES Mag., “EA 178 15 Winds Aug. Lawyer Student YES Sierra, NO Nat’l Geog. 16 Winds July/Aug Student- Same YES Part-time YES Anthro. stunner carp job 17 Winds July/Aug Banker Mtn. Guide YES Outside YES, in CO. Mag., Mtn. comfort Guide level 18 Winds July/Aug Student- Same NO Environ. Studies 19 Winds Aug. Student- Same YES Sweetwater YES, Nursing fishing comfort Exped. level 179 Reasons for taking NOLS Participate in Outdoor Adventure Activities KO)!” Knox: sommz-«x IUD—'9‘ VI)” (020' ”02,0 K>-()K H1)” V-‘KUI "IR-I42 Learn to CBMP. Enjoy outdoors, Challenge YES Good for learning skills, chance to go in mtns. Rockclimbing skills, meeting new people. success of climbing a Li"- YES Bring skills up to speed, to be out in YES Learn mtn. skills, rockclimbing, experience being out for a long time. YES Develop outdoor skills. Expand experience, backcountry for a long time. YES Word of meat , thought it would be m- Wanted to take NOLS for a long time. YES 180 Stepped down YES 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 from football training for new job. Learn YES 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 teaching technique of outdoor adventure activities. Learn to be YES 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 an effective teacher, looks good on resins, NOLS is best school in country. Learn to YES 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 conduct self in wilderness, be in the wilderness. E 5 I i l I Learn YES 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 technical skills, be comfortable in wild. Deco-e YES 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 proficient in skills, be in the wilderness. Looking for YES 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 additional experience, technical skills and instruction. N Fathers idea YES 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 For the YES 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 F" ,7 ** 1-Frequently Zalnfrequently 3=Never 181 ,_,,i__r, ‘ Interview State Performance in Performance in Rely on Feedback I Type Tech. Skills Leadership Skills 1 phone PA Did well in I made decisions Pretty much! would Rockclimbing when necessary. have liked to have and fishing'Not had more feedback so well in map sessions. and compass 2 phone MI Average with Below average. I A lot! Maybe too other people tend to keep mouth much. Evaluation was and average shut when I’m not in devastating. with myself. charge. Did good in map and compass. 3 phone MD Average to I complained a lot. About 60% below average I didn’t stand out in comparison in the group. to everyone else. Wish I had been in better physical shepe. NC Average to Strong leader. Was Not very much! above average. oldest in group. Really did not seek Good More of a it out. I believe endurance - not facilitator- less in other students could afraid to put decision making. have gained from it. forth effort. CT I was good at I was leader of Very much! I rockclimbing- group on walkout. I respected leaders. strength. My learned a lot from weakness was leaders. map and compass. CO Average. Average. Quite a bit. Navigation was my strength. CO I’ve improved Adequate in typical High degree since NOLS. NOLS course. boulder hopping was a strength. CO Navigation and Solid person. Meant A lot from the climbing were something to the group. Personal good. group. I had skills and Recommended to confidence in my leadership were take responsibility. good. Instructors course. CO Below average I had difficulty Yes. The instructors to the rest of the group. with the rest of the group. I had different philosophies on leadership. helped me with rockclimbing 1£32 1O face MI Not well in Good self- I appreciated rockclimbing. evaluation. I was feedback. More Navigation was supportive, aware, interested in average and and had a non~ soliciting fishing was OK. anxious presence. instructor’s feedback. 11 phone IL Evaluation was Leader of off-trail It was important to good. enjoyed navigation. receive feedback in rockclimbing areas that I did not and performance have lots of was good. experience. CO Ouite well! I Good but not an I always relied on had a expert. No major instructor feedback. background in errors. Was leader most skills. of the day. MT More prepared I felt very A lotl I was then a lot of comfortable and concerned about how students. More natural. Would have I was coming across advanced in liked more to others - rockclimbing leadership sessions. aggressive. and weakest in I had hoped to snow work. I refine my leadership was pleased skills. with performance. NJ Average to Average. 1 was A lot! Instructors below average. concentrating on were helpful but I could have self more. had a could have been more done more as I hard time patient. look back. I (physically) on the was slow. course. FL Greatly Above average. I improved in took initiative. I safety was more concerned procedures and about tech. skills mountaineering rather than leadership skills toward end of course. DC Not happy with I let others lead Feedback was performance. because it was important. It helped Map reading was easier. improve my tough. Attitude performance. could have been better. Would have liked to push myself more. VA Nigh achiever, I was leader of Some. I tried to eager, orienteering skills work on my interested and and small group weaknesses. motivated. expedition. I was Rockclimbing self-centered. was weak, map reading was good. VA Average. I was Average. When I was slow and steady. I was a complainer. leader I seemed to take it more serious. I'fl not sure. 1 .1133 r__ .. l ! Slightly above I would take I don’t remember average. leadership much feedback. I do responsibility if it remember an was given to me. I instructor learned what kind of instilling leaders I was. confidence in her in a hiking group. ==__ = I Make a difference who ; you received feedback Satisfied with your NOLS What did you like least about your NOLS '-Ir What did you like most about your : from. experience? experience? NOLS experience? ‘ 1 i No, not really! As Yes, There were not enough Being in the long as it was good definitely! wrap sessions with mountains. Learning feedback. Yet, it the entire group. technical skills. . would have meant more Creating bonds with 1 if it was from people. ‘ instructor that I j connected with. 1 Would have liked a , female instructor. i 2 Yes. A male Yes, I was! Lack of time for Doing things I’ve instructor. He had a self. never done. Being teachers approach. out in the wilderness with . other people. 3 No, not really! We Yes! Two instructors were Exposure to i had a meeting with somewhat involved and wilderness. all three instructors that created some Instructors made me mid course but it tneasiness in the feel comfortable. would have been more group. It wasn’t bad The people and the beneficial to have and I’m not organization of the had individual complaining but it course. meetings with 1 was there. instructor. 4 P No, not really! If I Yes! Age differences. Opportunity to be 1 had a women There was disparity out in the woods instructor on the of goals among group. for that amount of ; course it may have time. i made a difference. 1 Yes! Yes! I would have liked to The whole outdoor , have done more experience. Working I rockclimbing. with other people. . No, not really! Yes, more than Nothing! Rockclimbing and satisfied! use of the ice axe. They were most challenging. 184 I don’t think so! Yes! Authoritative The schedule. We instructor. were active all of the time. Not overwhelming. . All three. However, Oh yes! It wasn’t long Community of the 1 I respected the CL enough! group. Support of the most. (i.e., group and Del). instructors. ‘ Yes. I particular Yes! The feeling like I Being outdoors. ‘ male instructor. The was told what to do. i males seemed to get along with home better. I respected all three Yes! Very Rockclimbing because Length of trip. The instructors. pleased. it was something that physical strength I didn’t particularly one feels. Getting enjoy. used to no sound. Cooking and the baking. 11 No not really. But I Definitely! The climbing at Approach of the did put Del on a Sinks. It was very leader - Del. Off- i pedestal. hot, water was bad to trail hiking. get to, etc. Mountaineering and Equipment. Will daily hiking. The invest in own continental divide. climbing harness- shoes were uncomfortable Yes. A male Yes, very! The drought. The Duality of ' instructor. fishing wasn’t good. instruction. Very professional. Openness of everyone. Overall feel of organization is good. No. But I identified Yes, Food. Snow Work because with the male definitely! it was new to me. 7 instructor. There was : no opportunity for 3 mentoring. : No. Yes. Rockclimbing because Small group there was an expedition. evacuation. ' Yes! Feedback from CL Yes! The course wasn’t Exposure to the (male) carried more explained well enough Wind Rivers. Expert instructors but I appreciated the feedback and knowledge from the one female instructor (camp job) the lack of not acknowledging the creator in the wilderness. ' weight. to people before hand instruction. ' (physical Duration of course. fitnessLetc.) Yes. The CL had so So satisfied. Hoping the group was The leaders. much experience more mature. (female) Any of the Yes! Personally, it was Being outdoors. Being in God’s creation - spirituality. 185 18 Definitely! All Definitely! Blisters. The rain at No restraints. The three instructors night and being wet. scenery and the were good but I The rain fly’s friends. learned a great deal collapsing. from the one female instructor. 19 Yes, the female Yes, it was a Didn’t do as many Being outdoors. instructor. positive technical skills as I Talking to tent experience. had hoped to. mates, sleeping under the stars. The most favorite was the 3.5 days of fasting. Ea kept you from Would you Would you Have you Anything else you would participating participate encourage encouraged like to say? in NOLS again in others to others? again? NOLS? take NOLS? 1 Money Possibly. It Sure! Yes! I learned about danger is once in a situations. Would have life time liked to have done more thing. snow work and mountaineering 2 Money and Yes, I think Yes. I have! It’s a character time. I would if builder. I was it wasn’t as disappointed that intense. students didn’t teach a course. Limited to freedom on the course. 3 Money and I think so! Absolutely! Yes! I support NOLS even time. though I can’t afford to send money to NOLS! 4 Money and Yes, I Definitely. Yes! No, not really. time! would! It was beneficial for physical, mental and emotional reasons. 5 Time! Yes! Definitely! Yes. NO. 6 Money and Yes! I’d Sure! Yes! NO. time! love to! 7 Money and Yes. Yes. Yes. Each instructor was time! sensitive to the level of each person. 186 8 Money! Yes. Yes. I have but MO. it’s too expensive. 9 Money and not MD! Yes, but I Yes! Not really. The Cl. was being able to would good! have choices. preface it. 10 Money, time, Oh sure! Yes. Yes, it’s a MD. and freedom. character builder. 11 Money and Yes, Yes. Yes. Have done some work with time absolutely. 0.8. but I really like comitment the MOLs approach to with job. wilderness education. 12 Money! Yes. Yes. Yes. Well prepared instructors. Marmony and the students were good. 13 Money! Yes. Yes. Yes. Screening process with OEC’s. 16 Money and Yes! Yes. Yes. time! 15 Time! Sure! Yes. I have. Mo, not really! MOLS helped bring about the safety issue with me. 16 Money and Absolutely! Yes. I do all of I achieved my goals. time! the time! 17 Time. Yes. I would Yes. Yes, lots of Appreciated the Ability to like to take people. experience. find that instructors length of course. time. 18 Money and Yes. Yes. Yes. MOLS pushed me into the summer facts about the school. outdoors. I have a minor in enviromuental studies and major in anthropology. 19 Money! Yes, I think Yes. To three of so if it was my best in another friends. lace. LETTERS AND CONSENT FORMS APPENDIX E 187 APPENDIX E CONSENT FORM ORAL HISTORIES I, have agreed to participate in the personal interview conducted by Rena Koesler. I understand that the purpose of this interview is to obtain information about my former NOLS course. This information will be used to determine the long term effects of a NOLS course on continued involvement in wilderness education. I understand that I may choose not to participate at all or not answer certain questions. I understand that my answers will be tape recorded and that the tapes will be destroyed upon completion of the research. I also understand that none of this information will be associated with my name and that the information will be treated with strict confidence. By signing below, I understand the purpose of the interview and am willing to participate in the project. SIGNATURE: DATE: 188 COVER LETTER FOR CONTROL GROUP SURVEY MAILING #1 June 16, 1992 Dear NOLS Student: Greetings! The time is drawing near to when you will be starting’ your NOLS course. NOLS is conducting several research projects this summer for the purposes of expanding the knowledge of *wilderness education. and improving’ the overall program. The enclosed information is a brief description of one of the research projects being conducted this summer. NOLS and researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) are interested in determining the nature and extent of continued leadership involvement after a NOLS course. NOLS is also interested in determining what factors influence a student’s continued involvement in leadership and wilderness education. Your answers are important as you will help to identify some of the factors that contribute to continued leadership. Enclosed you will find the survey questionnaire. More detailed instructions for completing the survey are given on the first page of the questionnaire. The survey form should take about 15 minutes to complete. Your answers are vglugtary ° ' and protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. Your identity will remain anonymous--the answers you provide will be grouped with all others so that they cannot be associated with you or anyone else in your group. When you have completed the questionnaire, enclose it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Staff at MSU will be conducting the data analysis. Iijou have any questions about completing the survey form or about the survey in general, feel free to contact either Dr. Dennis Propst at MSU in the Department of Parks and Recreation Resources: (517) 353-5190, or Ms. Abby Caul Scott at (303) 665-0903. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Dr. Dennis Propst Ms. Abby Caul Scott Associate Professor NOLS Research Manager Dept. of Parks and Recreation Resources 189 COVER LETTER TO CONTROL GROUP SURVEY MAILING ’2 July 8, 1992 Dear NOLS Student: On June 17th, a questionnaire was sent to you regarding research that is being conducted by NOLS over the next two yearsa Iijou received the questionnaire, you may recall that NOLS and researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) were asking for your participation in filling out the questionnaire and returning it to Michigan State University. If you received, completed and returned the questionnaire, disregard this reminder and thank you very much for taking the time to fill it out. If you have not received or completed the questionnaire, please continue to read below as I will briefly explain the purpose of the research. The purpose of the research is to determine the nature and extent of continued leadership involvement after a NOLS course. NOLS is interested in determining what factors influence a student’s continued involvement in leadership and wilderness education. We are very interested in your responses as you will represent those people who were not selected to participate in this study. Enclosed you will find the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire is fairly self-explanatory and should take about 15 minutes to complete. Your answers are W ggnfiiggntial and protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. Your identity will remain anonymous--the answers you provide will be grouped with all others so that they cannot be associated with you or anyone else in your group. Please take the time to complete the questionnaire as it will be used to improve the overall NOLS program. When you have completed the questionnaire, enclose it in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Staff at (MSU) will be conducting the data analysis. If you have any questions about completing the survey form or about the survey in general, feel free to contact either Dr. Dennis Propst at MSU in the Department of Parks and Recreation Resources: (517) 3253-5090 or Abby Caul Scott at NOLS: (307) 332-6973. Thank you for yOur time! Sincerely, Dr. Dennis Propst Ms. Abby Caul Scott Associate Professor Research Manager Dept. of Parks and NOLS Recreation Resources 190 PRETEST INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT 1992 8 1993 Greetings! My name is Rena Koesler and I'm a graduate student at Michigan State University as well as a NOLS Instructor. I'd like to take a few moments of your time to explain the research that we’re conducting over the next few years here at NOLS. As you know, NOLS is a well known and highly respected wilderness education program. Needless to say, NOLS is very committed to teaching leadership. The purpose of this research is to determine what factors on a NOLS course contribute to leadership development in wilderness education after NOLS. We’re also interested in finding out what students are doing after they complete a NOLS course and whether they have continued a level of involvement in wilderness education - such as a career in the outdoors, volunteering for outdoor or environmental organizations or simply subscribing to outdoor magazines. We would like you to participate in the following questionnaire. Your responses are very important as you will help to identify some of the factors that contribute to leadership development in wilderness education. This information will in turn help us to improve the overall NOLS curriculum. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. Before you begin, I will need to read the following statements to you so that you have an understanding of the research and the questionnaire. You have been fully informed about the nature of the study. You understand the project and you are willing to participate in the project. You understand that you may choose not to participate at all or not answer certain questions. You understand that you may ask any questions you have before, during or after the survey questions are administered. You understand that all answers and information will be treated in strict confidence and your identity will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. No reports will be made on your individual responses. Your actual participation in this survey represents your consent in filling out the questionnaire. 191 1. Answer all 17 questions even if you are unsure. Please respond to the "briefly explain" and the "why and why not" statements. 2. Please use the templates for question #17 to follow down the columns in order not to miss placing an "X" in the boxes. 3. Thank you and you may begin whenever you are ready. 192 POSTTEST INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT 1992 8 1993 Greetings! How was your course? As you recall, I was here on the first day of your course and I gave you a survey to fill out. I’d like to spend a few moments again to re- introduce myself and briefly explain the purpose of the research to you. My name is Rena Koesler, a graduate student from Michigan State University and a NOLS instructor. As you know, NOLS wants people to learn something about leadership on a course. They strongly believe through practical hands on experience that students leave with some judgments to be able to continue involvement at some level in wilderness education after NOLS. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. Again, we would like you to participate in the following questionnaire. We’d like to look at the changes from pre course to post course to determine the factors that may have an impact on continued involvement. We’d like to do a 1 year follow up with you to investigate any changes that may have taken place after your NOLS course. Before you begin, I need to read some statements to you so that you have an understanding of the purpose of the research and the questionnaire. You have been fully informed about the nature of the study. You understand the project and you are willing to participate in the project. You understand that you may choose not to participate at all or not answer certain questions. You understand that you may ask any questions you have before, during or after the survey questions are administered. You understand that all answers and information will be treated in strict confidence and your identity will remain anonymous in any report of research findings“ No reports will be made on your individual responses. Your actual participation in this survey represents your consent in filling out the questionnaire. 1. Please try to answer all of the questions, even if you are unsure. 193 2. Put your name and address of where you can be best contacted by mail in 1 years time. It will be very important for the NOLS program to identify some of the long term effects of a NOLS course. If your are not sure, please put your parents or most permanent address down so that we can mail a follow-up questionnaire to you. 3. Please use the templates for question #17 to follow down the columns in order not to miss placing an "X" in the boxes. 4. Thank you very much and you can begin whenever you are ready. CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX F THROUGH J 194 APPENDIX F 1992 PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: Please try to answer ALL 17 questions even if you are uncertain. 1. COURSE TYPE: a. Outdoor Educators Course (OEC) b. Wind River Wilderness (WRW) c. Wind River Mountaineering (WMT) 2. COURSE LENGTN: 3. COURSE DATES: _______ TD _______ 4. COURSE LOCATION: 5. WHAT IS YOUR AGE? 6. GENDER? F M 7. WHAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION YOU HAVE COMPLETED? (Please check one) a. Elementary school b. Junior high school c. Nigh school d. Associate or technical degree e. Bachelor’s degree f. Graduate or professional degree a. ARE You A FULL-TIME swoeun Yes _ No _ 8a. If yes and you are a college student, what is your area of study or intended area of study? 9. ARE YOU EMPLOYED FULL-TIME? Yes ___ No 10. IF EMPLOYED, HNAT IS YOUR MAIN OCCUPATION? 11. IF YOU ARE NEITHER A STUDENT OR EMPLOYED, BRIEFLY IDENTIFY YOUR OCCUPATION? 12. WNAT IS YOUR OVERALL OUTDOOR EXPERIENCE LEVEL? a. Introductory (I) b. Development (0) c. Commitment (C) IMTkaCTmY: participants have little or no experience with any form of adventure recreation activity. Minimal skills are needed and control rests largely with a designated leader and a set of structured procedures. DEVELOPMENT: participants have some previous experience and are interested in further involvement. Skills are at the intermediate level but need guidance and expertise from others to improve. Group leaders or instructors may be present to teach skills and insure safety. OMITMENT: participants have high level skillsI exgrienceI and comitment to the activity. Participants at this level are prepared to face substantial risks in an environment that is wild and often unpredictable. 195 13. UHAT IS YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE? a. City: b. State: c. Zip Code: PLEASE IDENTIFY THREE (3) GOALS THAT YOU WISH TO ACCOMPLISH ON THE COURSE. A. CNEC! HERE IF YOU HAVE NO SPECIFIC GOALS: 15. For the three goals that you just stated, please rate the extent to which you agree with the next two statements, using a S-point scale. A “5“ means that you strongly agree with the statement: a '1' means that you strongly disagree with the statement. Intermediate numbers should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreement, with a “3“ indicating that you neither agree or disagree with the Statement. Otttiitttttttititttfittitittittttitifittitittittttttttt!tit... 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly agree Agree neither agree disagree strongly or disagree disagree (15a) It is impgrtant that I (as opposed to someone else) influence how well I accomplish the above goals that I set for myself on this course. (15b) I expect to be able to influence how well I accomplish the above course goals that I set for myself. 196 mm: Please rate the extent to mich you agree with each of the following statements, min a S-point scale. A '5' mean that you strongly agree with the statement; a '1' means that you stromly disagree with the statement. Intermediate numbers should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreaent, with a '3' indicating that you neither agree or disagree with the state-mt. wmemenmeeenemeeeemeeeeeeeeeeeeneme 5 4 3 2 1 Stromly agree Agree Heither agree Disagree Strongly or disagree Disagree (16s) I I in control of my life. (16b) I feel that mether or not I am successful is just a matter of luck and dance, rather than my on doing. (16c) I feel that others are rusting my life for me. (16d) I like to stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things. (16a) No matter how obvious things seem to be, I can always find somethim to mestion. (16f) I like to change the rules to gaes. (16g) It’s unsual for me to change my first impressions. (16h) I have trelble seeing other people’s points of view. (16i) I like hidden figure goes. (16]) I don’t usually ask a lot of questions. (16k) I often use tools or furniture for purposes other than that they were meant for. (16l) I don’t like surprises. (16m) I often see the hl-or in situations then others don’t. (16m) I on nke almost any activity fm for me to do. (16o) It is imrtant that I (as opposed to someone else) influence how well I accomlish the goals that I set for myself. (16p) I 2525! to be able to influence how well I accomlish the goals that I set for myself. 197 17. IMSTWIGS: Please indicate how confident you are in your m (TQM) ability to perform the following tasks. If you have no confidence about the tasks place an -x- in the DR boa. Otherwise, place an 'X' in the box that reflects the most appropriate percentage of confidence. VERY SOMEUNAT VERY UNCERTAIN CERTAIN CERTAIN 1L7 I...- ' TASKS OR 10 20 30 40 SD 60 TD BO 90 R R R R R R R R R 17.. CASTING A FISHING LINE I7b. RAPPELLING OFF OF A ROCK FACE 17C. STREAM CROSSING OVER FAST MOVING HATER USING AN ICE ARE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FALLING ON SNOU/ICE 17d. L._._ 170. CLIMBING A BEGINNER LEVEL CLIMB BACKPACK 3 MILES NITH 60lbs ON YOUR BACK 17f. CLIMBING AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL CLIMB 17g. BACKPACK 6 MILES UITH 60lbs ON YOUR BACK I 17!. n. IN atevmow 1 CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 12,000 CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 18,000 FT. IN ELEVATION IDENTIFYING FLORA AND FAUNA IN A NILDERNESS AREA I71. OUTDOOR COOKING Iflm. IDENTIFYING HEATHER PATTERNS 17h. ADMINISTERING BASIC FIRST AID I70. PRACTICING MINIMUM IMPACT CAMPING AND RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION READING AND INTERPRETING A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP I 17p. JUDGE THE TIME AND DISTANCE IT MAY TAKE TO HIKE FROM POINT A TO POINT D IN A NILDERHESS SETTING 17g. 17r. ROUTE FINDING OFF TRAIL IN A UILDERHESS SETTING LEADING A SMALL (3'5) GROUP IN A UILDERHESS SETTING 17s. ORGANIZING AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION I7t. PROCEDURE all-I111 198 APPENDIX G 1993 PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE IHSTRUCTIIIIS: Please try to answer ALL 20 questions even if you are mcertain. 1. kaSE TYPE: a. Outdoor Educators Course (OEC) b. Wind River Wilderness (WRW) c. Wind River Momtaineering (HIT) 2. CWRSE DATES: TO 3. CGJRSE LOCATION: 4. NHAT IS YOUR AGE? 5. GENDER? F M 6. UHAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION YOU HAVE COMPLETED? (Hem check ate} a. _ Elementary school b. __ Jmior high school c. _ High school d. ____ Associate or technical degree e. _ Bachelor’s degree f. Graduate or professional degree 7. ARE Y0) A FULL'TIME STLDENT? Yes No 7a. If yes and you are a college student, what is your area of study or intended area of study? 8. ARE Yw EMPLOYED: Fullstime? Yes No Part-time? Yes No Seasonal? Yes No 199 Be. If yes to any of the above, please describe your job or occupation. 9. If you are neither a student nor employed, please describe the work you do. 10. Do you subscribe to any outdoor or environmental magazines? Yes No 10a. If yes, list the names of all the outdoor/environmental magazines you can recall. 11. Do you belong to any outdoor or environmental organizations? YES NO 11a. If yes, please identify the name of the organization, your position (member or officer), and whether your position was a paid or volunteer position. (check 99;} ORGANIZATION MEMBER OFFICER 12. Have you participated in any of the following outdoor adventure or wilderness activities? If so, place a check in the space next to the activity. Rockclillbing _ Canoeing _ Backpacking ____ Kayaking Mountaineering ____ Rafting ____ Fishing ____ Mtn. Biking Skiing _ Camping 13. Have you attended any outdoor or environmental workshops or conferences? Yes No 13a. If yes, please identify the name of the workshop/conference. 200 I4. NHAT IS YOUR OVERALL OUTDOOR EXPERIENCE LEVEL? a. Introductory b. Development *‘SEE EXPLANATION BELQEI c. Commitment INTRODUCTORY: participants have little or no gxpgrience with any form of adventure recreation activity. Minimal skills are needed and control rests largely with a designated leader and a set of structured procedures. DEVELOPMENT: participants have some previous expgriencg and are interested in further involvement. Skills are at the intermediate level but need guidance and expertise from others to improve. Group leaders or instructors may be present to teach skills and insure safety. COHITMENT: participants have high level skillsI exgrience, and commitment to the activity. Participants at this level are prepared to face substantial risks in an environment that is wild and often unpredictable. 15. WHAT IS YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE? a. City: b. State: c. Zip Code: 16. IDENTIFY THREE (3) GOALS THAT YOU NISH TO ACCOMPLISH ON THE COURSE. A. C. CHECK MERE IF YOU HAVE NO SPECIFIC GOALS: 17. For the three goals that you just stated, please rate the extent to which you agree with the next two statements. A “5" means that you strongly agree with the statement; a '1“ means that you strongly disagree with the statement. Intermediate nulbers should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreement, with a '3" indicating that you neither agree or disagree with the statement. MOiflflfiflttnittiittit....ttfifiiifiitfittit...tittitttit.....itttitttt"... S 4 3 2 1 Strongly agree Agree neither agree disagree strongly or disagree disagree (18a) It is impggggg; that I (as opposed to someone else) influence how well I accomplish the above goals that I set for myself on this course. (18b) I m to be able to influence how well I acconplish the above course goals that I set for myself. 201 19. INSTRUCTIOIS: Please indicate how certain you are in you mg ("1)") ability to perform the followim tasks. If you have no certainty about the tasks place an '1' in the DR boa. Otherwise, place m 'X' in the box that reflects the mat appropriate percentage of certainty. VERY BOMWT VBRY UNCERTAIN C ERTAIN CERTAIN IEEIIIEEEEEIEIEIIIEIIIIIIIIIEEIIWIIIIIIEEIII-IIIHI I TASKS OR ID 20 30 40 50 60 70 CO 90 TOO R R R R R R R R R R O. CASTING A FISHING LINE I b. RAPPELLING OFF OF A ROCK FACE I c. STREAM CROSSING OVER FAST MOVING HATER d. USING AN ICE ARE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FALLING ON SNOU/ICE O. CLIMBING A BEGINNER LEVEL CLIMB f. BACKPACK 3 MILES WITH 601bs ON YOUR BACK lg. CLIMBING AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL CLIMB h. BACKPACK 6 MILES WITH 60lbs ON YOUR BACK i. cuus A we»: THAT IS over 12,000 n. IN nevmow I. CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 18,000 FT. IN ELEVATION R. IDENTIFYING FLORA AND FAUNA IN A UILDERNESS AREA I. OUTDOOR COOKING m. IDENTIFYING WEATHER PATTERNS n. ADMINISTERING BASIC FIRST AID O. PRACTICING MINIMUM IMPACT CAMPING AND RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION p. READING AND INTERPRETING A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP q. JUDGE THE TIME AND DISTANCE IT MAY TAKE TO HIKE FROM POINT A TO POINT B IN A WILDERNESS SETTING r. ROUTE FINDING OFF TRAIL IN A WILDERNESS SETTING I O. LEADING A SMALL (3-5) GROUP IN A WILDERNESS SETTING t. ORGANIZING AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE 202 '1" gigs; Qwer mese last mtions to the best of your ability. WWW WU certain situations in mug: [Qtnuctionu Please rate the extent to mich you agree with each of the followim stateuIts. A '5' m that you strongly agree with the statement; a '1' mean: that you strongly disagree with the statement. Intermediate tubers should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreaent, with a '3' indicatim that you neither agree or disagree with the statement. wmemeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee S 4 3 2 1 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly or disagree Disagree (20a) I n in control of my life. (20a) I feel that mether or not I a successful is just a matter of luck and chance, rather than my on doing. (20c) I feel that others are mim my life for me. (20:!) I like to stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things. (20c) No matter how obvious things seem to be, I can always find somethim to question. (20f) I like to change the rules to games. __ (20g) It’s manual for me to change my first imressions. (21!!) I have trotble seeing other people’s points of view. (201) I don’t usuflly ask a lot of (pestions. (20]) I often use tools or furniture for purposes other than that they were wt for. (20k) I don’t like surprises. (ZOl) I often see the hl-or in situations then others don’t. (2h) I cm nke almost any activity fat for me to do. (20:) It is M that I (as opposed to someone else) influence how well I Wish the goals that I set for myself. (200) I 2529. to be able to influence how well I accomlish the goals that I set for myself. ELEASE CHECK THAT Yw HAVE ANSIERED ALL 20 “SUNS, THANKSI 203 APPENDIX H 1992 POSTTEST TIME I QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: Please try to answer ALL 17 questions even if you are uncertain. 1. Check the following skill areas which you participated in during this NOLS course. a. Backpacking ____ f. Tyrolean Traverse ____ b. Rockclimbing ____ g. Snow Work (self-arrest) c. Peak Ascents ____ h. Cooking and Baking ____ d. fishing: Fly Spin ____ j. map reading ____ e. River Crossing(s) ____ i. Other 2. Were you able to accomplish the goals you had identified prior to the start of the course? ngggly gxplginl (for additional space please write on back of this form) 3. How much control over the accomplishment of your goals did you pgrsonally have? no control little control some control a great deal of control 4. How much control over the accomplishment of your goals did the instructor; and gther staggggs have? no control little control some control a great deal of control 5. Leadership Experience on your course: 0“ m... a. Give a presentation? yes___ no If yes, please identify the topic: b. Lead a hiking group? yes___ no___ N of times c. Make a leadership decision impacting more than just yourself? yes___ no ___ 4 of times Were you ... d. A student leader of a climbing group? yes ___ no ___ N of times Other leadership experiences: 204 6. Feedback: NOLS is interested in the types and amount of feedback you received on this course. In the appropriate boxes below, please circle one of the following: "F“ Female, 'M' Male, 'B' Both to reflect who gave the feedback most often and how often it was given. Place a check ( ) in the zero '0' box if you received NO feedback of this type. There should be only one answer for each type of feedback. EXAMPLE: Circle an "M“ in the first box if you received "Direct-Personal' feedback (1-5 times) from a male instructor. AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK I TYPES OF FEEDBACK 1-5 6-10 I DIRECT-PERSONAL FEEDBACK (face to face by mostly mostly instructor) F M B F M B H DIRECT-GROUP FEEDBACK mostly mostly (entire group by instructor) F M B F M B INDIRECT-PERSONAL FEEDBACK mostly mostly mostly (in passing - casual/informal by F M B F M B F M B instructor) NON-INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK mostly mostly mostly (feedaack given by anyone other than instructor) F M B F M B F M B 7. Was the verbal feedback you received on the course: somewhat mostly negative negative mostly somewhat positive positive 8. Was there one particular instructor that you fee! provided periodic guidance and feedback ;g_ygy throughout the course? Yes No ' Ba. If yes, identify whether the instructor was a male or female: Male Female 9. If you had a concern about something, was there an instructor you tended to confide in the most? Yes No 9a. If yes, identify whether the instructor was a male or female: Male Female 10. Was there one particular instructor that YOU identified with the most as a role model? Yes No 10a. If yes, identify whether the instructor was a male or female: Male Female 11. Using the same 1 to 5 criteria that was on your NOLS written evaluation, how would you rate your overall performance on the course? Base your answer on your personal opinion rather than the instructor’s written evaluation of you. Little effort Effort is Meets basic or desire ineffective expectations 1 2 3 Exceeds basic Far exceeds expectations basic expectations 4 5 12. Do you think that the feedback you received on your WRITTEN EVALUATION§ at the end of the course was an accurate account of your performance? Yes ___ No ___ Why or why not? 13. 14. 15. 205 Do you think that the feedback you received THROUGHOUT the course was an accurate account of your performance? Yes ___ Ho ___ Why or why not? What is the likelihood that you will continue participating in outdoor adventure activities? (Check one) Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely What is the likelihood that you will pursue a career in outdoor adventure or outdoor recreation? Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely 206 APPENDIX I 1993 POSTTEST TIME 1 QUESTIONNAIRE [l513g§1[g!§; Plegge tgy to answer ALL 17 gpgstions even if 19p are uncergpip. 1. Were you able to accomplish the goals you had identified prior to the start of the course? Goal 1: Yes ___ No Goal 2: Yes _ No Goal 3: Yes ___ No 2. If yes, please identify the degree to which you feel you accomplished your goals by placing the appropriate number in the space corresponding to the goal. mm Goal 1: __ 33.2213. a me l8 Goal 2: Goal 3: 2a. If 'no', briefly explain why your goal(s) was not accomplished. (For additional space please write on back of this form). 3. How much control over the accomplishment of your goals did you pgrsonally have? no little some a lot of control control control control 4. How much control over the accomplishment of your goals did thg instructors and otheg stpggpgg have? no little some a lot of control control control control Feedback: Feedback is a verbal or written report of the result of any behavior which may reinforce or modify future behavior. Please respond to the following types of feedback and the amount of times you recall receiving feedback from your instructor(s). Below is a brief description of each type of feedback. DIRECT FEEDBACK: This type of feedback is directed to you face-to-face by one or more of your instructors. INDIRECT FEEDBACK: This type of feedback is given to you in a casual or informal manner. It may be given to you in passing or directed to your entire group with you present. 207 5. Did you receive direct feedback from your instructor(s) throughout the course? Yes No 5a. If yes, please indicate the amount of direct feedback you received throughout the course. (check one) 1-5 times 6-10 times 11 or more times Sb. Was the direct feedback you received on the course given to you 9953;! from: (pups; _________!O£2 Female Instructor Male Instructor Both Female and Male Instructor 6. Did you receive indirect feedback from you instructor(s) throughout the course? YRS NO 6a. If yes, please indicate the amount of indirect feedback you received throughout the course. ec 1-5 times 6-10 times 11 or more times 6b. Was the indirect feedback you received on the course given to you mostly from: k Female Instructor Male Instructor Both Female and Male Instructor 7. Was the verbal feedback you received on the course: mostly somewhat somewhat mostly positive positive negative negative 8. Was the verbal feedback you received on the course: mostly somewhat somewhat mostly immediate immediate delayed delayed 10e 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 208 Do you think that the feedback you received on your WRITTEN EVALUATIQNS at the end of the course was an accurate account of your performance? Yes No ___ Why or why not? Do you think that the feedback you received THROUGHOUT the course was an accurate account of your performance? Yes No ___ Why or why not? Did you have the opportunity to meet one-on-one with one of your instructors to discuss goals, exchange thoughts and ideas, or receive guidance? Yes No 11a. If yes, how many times did you meet one-on-one throughout the course? Was there one particular instructor that YOU felt provided periodic guidance to you throughout the course? Yes No 12a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? If you had a concern about something, was there an instructor YOU tended to 99911;; in the most? Yes No 13a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? A role model is one who exhibits behaviors and competence that is looked up to and admired. Was there one particular instructor that YOU identified with the most as a gglg_ppggl ? Yes No 14a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? Was there one particular instructor that YOU tended to trpgt the most? Yes NO 15a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? Was there one particular instructor that YOU identified with the most as a friend? YRS NO 16a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 17. ‘8. 19. 20. b. C. d. 209 Was there one particular instructor that YOU thought gave you a great deal of SOEQEEBBEESOET Yes No 17a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? For the above ”yes’I responses, are you identifying with the same male or female instructor? YRS NO What is the likelihood that you will continue participating in outdoor adventure activities? (gagg§_gpg) Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely What is the likelihood that you will pursue any of the following outdoor/environmental related positions? (gpeck one) Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely Seek Part-time Seek Full-time Seek Volunteer Seek Career 210 21. INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how confident you are in your m (“D“) ability to perform the followim tasks. If you have no confidence about the tasks place an 'X' in the 0R box. Otherwise, place a: 'K' in the box that reflects the most appropriate percentage of confidence. SOMEWHAT CERTAIN VERY CERTAIN VERY UNCERTAIN TASKS 50 R 60 R ”3 90 R CASTING A FISHING LINE RAPPELLING OFF OF A ROCK FACE STREAM CROSSING OVER FAST MOVING WATER USING AN ICE ARE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FALLING ON SNOW/ICE CLIMBING A BEGINNER LEVEL CLIMB BACKPACK 3 MILES WITH 601bs ON YOUR BACK CLIMBING AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL CLIMB BACKPACK 6 MILES WITH 601bs ON YOUR BACK CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 12,000 FT. IN ELEVATION CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 18,000 FT. IN ELEVATION IDENTIFYING FLORA AND FAUNA IN A WILDERNESS AREA OUTDOOR COOKING IDENTIFYING WEATHER PATTERNS ADMINISTERING BASIC FIRST AID D. PRACTICING MINIMUM IMPACT CAMPING AND RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION p. READING AND INTERPRETING A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP q. JUDGE THE TIME AND DISTANCE IT MAY TAKE TO HIKE FROM POINT A TO POINT B IN A WILDERNESS SETTING l'. ROUTE FINDING OFF TRAIL IN A WILDERNESS SETTING LEADING A SMALL (3'5) GROUP IN A WILDERNESS SETTING t. ORGANIZING AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE lb. 211 m Elm answer these last mtions to the fit of your abiligy. They do no; grtaip g Q: ES me, 243 to hang handle certain situations in ger_igral, Instructions: Please rate the extent to ahich you agree with each of the following statamits. A '5' mean that you strongly agree with the statement; a '1' means that you strongly disagree with the statement. Intermediate when should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreennt, with a '3' indicatiro that you neither agree or disagree with the statement. memenmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeeee S 4 3 2 1 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly or disagree Disagree (22a) I u in control of my life. (221)) I feel that mether or not I a successful is just a utter of luck an: cit-Ice, rather than my om: doing. (22c) I feel that others are naming my life for me. (22¢) I like to stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things. (22s) No utter how obvious things seem to be, I can always find something to question. (22f) I like to change the rules to gaes. (22g) It’s ml for me to change my first imressions. (22h) I have trouble seeing other people’s points of view. (22i) I don’t usually ask a lot of mestions. (22]) I often use tools or furniture for purposes other than that theywere meat for. (22k) I don’t like surprises. (22L) I often see the hlmor in situations when others don’t. (23) I can make almost any activity fat for me to do. (22:!) It is imrtant that I (as omosed to someone else) influence how well I accqlish the goals that I set for myself. (22o) I m to be able to influence how well I ucoqalish the goals that I set for myself. 212 APPEIDIR J POSTTEST TIME 2 «ESTIGINAIRE (1 Year Follow Up) 1. Please identify the NOLS course you participated in last summer (1992). Outdoor Educator’s Course (OEC) Wind River Wilderness Course (WRW) Wind River Mountaineering Course (WMT) 2. Had you participated in a NOLS course before last summer? Yes No 2a. If yes, identify the course and the year in which you had participated. Course: __ Year __ 3. What is the likelihood that you will continue participating in outdoor adventure activities? Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely 4. What is the likelihood that you will pursue a career in outdoor adventure or outdoor recreation? ggpggg_gpp) Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely likely likely unlikely unlikely "' 1h; followipg gpggtions pprtain to the gpidance ppg feedback ygg received pp ypg: QQLS eggpgg, 5. Was the verbal feedback you received on the course: mostly somewhat somewhat mostly positive positive negative negative 6. Did you have any opportunity to meet one-on-one with one of your instructors to discuss goals, exchange thoughts and ideas, or receive feedback? Yes No 6a. If yes, how many times did you meet one-on-one throughout the course? 213 7. Was there one particular instructor that YOU felt was helpful in providing periodic ggidam g to you throughout the course? YRS NO 7a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male 7 6. Was there one particular instructor that you tended to confide in the most? Yes No 8a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 9. A role model is one who exhibits behaviors and competence that is looked to to and admired. Was there one particular instructor that YOU identified with the most as a rgle model ? Yes No 9a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 10. Was there one particular instructor that YOU tended to trust in the most? YSS NO 10a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 11. Was there one particular instructor that YOU identified with the most as a jgjgpg? Yes No 11a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 12. Was there one particular instructor that YOU thought gave you a great deal of encouragement? Yes No 12a. If yes, was the instructor a female or male ? 13. If you answered 'yes' to any of the above responses, are you identifying with the same person/instructor each time? YRS NO "‘ ' re tions about e rience and involvpppnt in wilggpppgs educggidn Etjvitig ERNIE takim the NOLS course last SW. 14. For the 12 month period before taking a NOLS course last sunner, did you subscribe to any outdoor or environmental magazines? Yes No 214 14a. If yes, list the names of all the outdoor/environmental magazines you can recall. 15. Outdoor, wilderness or environmental education workshops and conferences may focus on a set of skills (e.g., mountaineering), or some topic of the natural environment (edible plants, bird watching, etc.) or a professional meeting related to the environment. For the 12 month period _ am taking a NOLS course last summer, did you attend any workshops or conferences related to the topic of outdoor, wilderness or environmental education? Yes ___ No ___ 15a. If yes, please identify workshops or conferences List all that you can recall. Name of Workshop(s) or Conference(s): 16. For the 12 month period before taking a NOLS course last summer, were you a member of any outdoor/environmental organization (i.e., scouts, environmental organization, local outing club, etc.)? Yes No 16a. If yes, please identify the organization and your position within the organization. (ghggk one) it AT menses m 1. 2. 3. 17. For the 12 month period before taking a NOLS course last summer, did you participate in any of the following outdoor adventure activities? Yes ___ No ___ 17!. If yes, please indicate the frequency of participation by placing a check in the appropriate space corresponding to the activity. §§111111 FREQQENCY (12 month period before NOLS) (1-3 times) (4-6 times) (7 or more times) Backpacking Rockclimbing Canoeing Kayaking Rafting Camping Fishing Mountaineering Mtn. Biking Skiing Other 215 16. For the 12 month period beforg taking a NOLS course last summer, did you have the opportunity to lead a group on an outdoor trip? Yes No 18a. If yes, please identify: gypg of trip (i.e., camping, backpacking, rockclimbing, etc.) trip’! lgpgth (i.e., day, weekend, week long or more) ggg_g;ggp (i.e., under 12, 13-21, or 22 yrs. or more). TYPE OF TRIP LENGTH AGE GROUP (If more than three trips, approximate the number of trips you led beyond the three you have listed above). S of trips "' ol i are tions r e rienc invo i dernes v ' SINCE NOLSc s as sinner 19. ELIE! your NOLS course last summer, did you subscribe to any outdoor or environmental magazines? Yes No 19a. If yes, list the names of all the outdoor/environmental magazines you can recall. 20. m your NOLS course last summer, have you attended any workshops or conferences related to the topic of outdoor, wilderness or environmental education? Yes No 20a. If yes, please identify the name of the workshop or conference that you attended. Name of workshop(s) or conference(s): (If more than three, approximate the number of workshops you have attended in the past year beyond the three you have listed). I of workshops 21. Sips: your NOLS course last summer, have you been a member of any outdoor/environmental organization (i.e., scouts, environmental organizations, local outing club, etc.)? YES NO 216 21a. If yes, identify the name of the organization and your position (member or officer) within the organization. (check one) u T on nausea m 1. _____ ______ 2. _____ ______ 3. _____ ______ 22. Sips; your NOLS course last summer, have you participated in any of the following outdoor adventure activities? Yes No 22a. If yes, please indicate the frequency of participation by placing a check in the appropriate space corresponding to the activity. A T V TY FREQUENCY (Since your NOLS course) (1-3 times) (4-6 times) (7 or more times) Backpacking Rockclimbing Canoeing Kayaking Rafting Camping Fishing Mountaineering Mtn. Biking Skiing Other 23. Sine; your NOLS course, have you had the opportunity to lead a group on an outdoor trip? Yes 0 23a. If yes, please identify: 31p; pf tpip (i.e., camping, backpacking, rockclimbing, etc.) grip’g lgpggh (i.e., day, weekend, week long or more) ggg_g;ggp (i.e., under 12, 13-21, or 22 yrs. and older). |Y£§ 9F TRIP LENGTH AG GROUP (If more than three trips, approximate the number of trips you have led beyond those listed above). A of trips "I 217 24. INSTRlE‘TImS: Please indicate how certain you are in you- mt (TmAY) fiflity to perform the following tasks. If you have no certainty about the tasks place an 'K' in the DR box. Otherwise, place an 'K' in the box that reflects the most appropriate percentage of certainty. VERY SOMEWXAT VERY UNCERTAIN CERTAIN CERTAIN r J TAB KB OR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 R. R R R R R R. R R R I. CASTING A FISHING LINE b. RAPPELLING OFF OF A ROCK FACE C. STREAM CROSSING OVER FAST MOVING WATER d. USING AN ICE ARE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FALLING ON SNOW/ICE e. CLIMBING A BEGINNER LEVEL CLIMB I. BACKPACK 3 MILES WITH 601bs ON YOUR BACK a. CLIMBING AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL CLIMB h. BACKPACK 6 MILES WITH 60le ON YOUR BACK I. CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 12,000 FT. IN ELEVATION I. CLIMB A PEAK THAT IS OVER 18,000 FT. IN ELEVATION K. IDENTIFYING FLORA AND FAUNA IN A WILDERNESS AREA I. OUTDOOR COOKING I. IDENTIFYING WEATHER PATTERNS n. ADMINISTERING BASIC FIRST AID O. PRACTICING MINIMUM IMPACT CAMPING AND RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION p. READING AND INTERPRETING A TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP q. JUDGE THE TIME AND DISTANCE IT MAY TAKE TO HIKE FROM POINT A TO POINT B IN A WILDERNESS SETTING r. ROUTE FINDING OFF TRAIL IN A WILDERNESS SETTING S. LEADING A SMALL (3'5) GROUP IN A WILDERNESS SETTING t. ORGANIZING AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE 218 "' lease answer he followi tions to the best of our abili . Ih do not ai QQLS gggggg, but to how you handle certgin situations in gsggral, Instructions: Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. A '5' means that you strongly agree with the statement; a "1" means that you strongly disagree with the statement. Intermediate numbers should be used to reflect intermediate levels of agreement, with a “3“ indicating that you neither agree or disagree with the statement. COQCICCOOOCORCROOttiittiitttitittitttiit tIttit.it...ttttitittttltttfltitt 5 l 3 2 I Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly or disagree Disagree (25a) I an in control of my life. (25b I feel that whether or not I am successful is just a matter of luck and chance, rather than my own doing. (25:) I feel that others are running my life for me. (25d) I like to stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things. (ZSe) No matter how obvious things seem to be, I can always find something to question. (25f) I like to change the rules to games. (259) It's musual for me to change my first iapressions. (25h) I have trouble seeing other people's points of view. (25i) I don't usually ask a lot of questions. (251) I often use tools or furniture for purposes other than what they were meant for. (25k) I don't like surprises. (ZSl) I often see the hunor in situations when others don't. (25m) I can make almost any activity fun for me to do. (25h) It is important that I (as opposed to someone else) influence how well I accomplish the goals that I set for myself. (250) I gages; to be able to influence how well I accomplish the goals that I set for myself. NORMALITY OF SELF-EFFICACY SCALE SCORE DISTRIBUTIONS APPENDIX K 219 12 10a- 8... fl 04- \\ 4... 2 SldDev-IBZZ / Mam-53.0 0" 'N-79.III 100‘ .0'300r400‘500'0fi’700TaI0'900 15.0 250 350 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0 050 Win-1. NanafilyoilheMdGImpSol-ElficacyScaIe 30 20« \ 10- / SldDev-13.11 Mean-47.6 0~ -2I7.00 0.0 ' 20.0 T 40.0 ' 500 ' 06.0 ‘ 1 .0 10.0 110 50.0 70.0 $1.0 Appendix K-Z. Nonnulily oi lhe Prelesl Seli-Efficaq Scale 220 40 we 204 101 Sld. Dev - 8.38 \‘Mean - 01.0 0, f f N -100.00 47.5 57.5 07.5 77.5 T 07.5 1 915 52.5 62.5 72.5 82.5 925 Appendix K-3. Netmelily oi the PostieslTime 1 Sell-Elficaw Scale 16 14- 12+ 10- 8w s. 4:: 2. Id. Dev - 1215 Mew - 75.9 N - 05.00 450 500 550 06.0 05.0 76.0 750 00.0 05.0 96.0 050 Appendix K-4. Novmalily oi the PoslteslTIme 2 Sell-Efficacy Scale SELF-EFFICACY TABLES APPENDIX L flamed use: co uoac_ucoov a... .o. ooo. ooo. .n.o~ u_o _m~. ~o.on non on.~n use ooo.o_ as..o sous .u. ooo. ooo. o~.op x~o opm. up.on goo o..nm «no ooo.~s ns_.u .09. ooxz «o._s ooo. ooo. oo.o. woo ~oo. oo..n goo -.o~ use a xuooxooo _ ae_.o ooo. ooo. om.os x~o ~oo. L~.nm woo s~.~n woo .uoacooc_ .09. oo\3 no._s ooo. ooo. so.o woo ooo. oo.- non No.P~ "no n .uooxooo ao_.o 1. ooo. ooo. mo.os woo ooo. ....m use o..sm "he Locc_ooo and 0x4 ooo. ooo. on.o~ goo ”so. o~.o~ x.~ om.o~ xp~ no. so on: oc_uuocu ooo. ooo. -.op who ooo. ~o.m~ xoo o_.o~ “no oaocom ooo. ooo. oo.m~ NNo Foo. o~.mn Rem oo.on an“ oc_..ooa.¢ ooo. ooo. on.o~ woo ooo. oo.¢m woo mm.sn who oc_om_. mzam> m moam> m AH masoo AH mewao on x moam> m on x am 2 some umfluumom ammuuwom ummumunw a a Howucoo unflumum HOHUGOU .vmauc. ozowo .Hnwuco .omuc. AH mafia. umouumom msowo umuumum macho Howucoo .nxmma mmocwouaaz wen acouwuumluaom cw mmsowo Houcoaawomxm 0cm Howucoo coo3uon comawmmeou .HIA canoe c.3339... ooo. ooo. mn.n~ woo on“. ~o.o~ x~n nn.pn an» oo_u.:uo>w ooo. ooo. op.o. woo ooo. oo..n u~o ~n.~n as“ oaoco - nous Revs. ooo. ooo. nn.e. umo ooo. mn.on won -.on ans «once u 8 < .8... 09.3qu ooo. ooo. ~o.n_ woo oo_. . oo.o~ use mn.o~ use oouao 92.28» ooo. ooo. «o.np no» PoN. oo.on xnm o~.on no“ . oc_uaoo 9:956 anal: ooo. ooo. 2..» x3 Go. 3.8 woo 2.5 "No 5:5: m“ ooo. ooo. oo.ss nos o.s. ~o.- «no oo._n non o_o.aac_a 2 9:059. .3533 ooo. ooo. o.._~ woo o_o. oo.o~ no» ss.o~ "on >c.acou_ sséau ooo. ooo. oo.o_ xmo ooo. n~.- who oo.- w~o coonoao gem ooo. ooo. «h.- «no sea. so.o~ uo~ on.o~ um~ on. ooo.. moam> m msao> m oaam> m AH mews. Ad cede. am 2 uamuowm am 2 an 2 some wuouuuom unouuuom o a a Aowucoo umouowm Howucou Aomaacv ozone .flmmuc. .mmuc. AH mauav unmuumom msowo unouowm msowu Howucoo ..o.ucou. .HIA canoe Amman axe: co poacwucoov xamm ooo.H mm.o~ poo Hm.v~ woo .uu ooo.mn assoc some omo. so.ofi mam m~.oa omm .um ooo.~H nEwHu .una oo\3 «do. mm.oo omm no.0” oom moose o somoxumm nu ode. on.H~ poo mm.ms omo noose .omemucH o. .mna oo\3 ooH. om.mfl mom oo.o «mm moose m guaoxumm ooo. oo.oH «mo mo.oa pom noose woccoomm ooo. n~.om «mo om.m~ omo 0x4 muH no mm: omo. oo.oa woo o~.oH «om mcommouo eauwum mom. om.om woo mo.n~ woo mcoaamooom ooo. Om.vn mam cm.m~ amo mcwnmwm oaae> m am 2 am a sumo ~ unouuaom H uuouuuom .oonc. .vmauc. snows .m esea. umouuuom oaowo .H «see. uuouuuom .mxmee emocwovaqz wOu humuauumiuaom N 0648 umouunom use a 0548 unmuunom coo3uon camdwemeou .qu manna .H use» 0» o>wuo~ow guess we swam manage onu owOuuwonu «mucaewumcou ucewm suwoomow 0» use N was» cu m «edu umouunom oz. ..omuc “Nmmdv woo woo» cw axo>wsm xuomwmee Bowmavme. oocwsuow noncommow uo woman: on» auuoamow owwm season nloemm.umouumom . 224 ufluflfiOOOHm ooo. om.o~ «on mn.m~ one coeuasuasm moo. ~fl.H~ woo ma.oo «mm msowo a once ooo. vo.oH omo on.oo amm ocuocwm uuaom . m o» 4 eowu ooo. mo.oa ado mo.no sow oucauuea cocoa me: «so. om.oa woo om.na omm once a madness madmado moo. o~.m omo oo.o omm unmoeH ensues: ooo. mH.H~ omo oo.oH ooo owauuuwwm ucumuuam ooo. om.- «mm oH.H~ omo wonuoms auwucoou ooo. ~n.o~ omo mm.oH omm oooxooo woouuao ooo. oo.o~ «no . eo.o~ one cases one «woos oaaa> a an x cm 2 game N uwouunom a H uuouuoom ..oouc. .vofluoo . osowo .w assoc uuouuuom msowo AH cease uaouuuom ..o.ucou. .Nuq canes 225 no... no... no.3 woo No.2. .8... .... oooé 3... 3.... “so... x8 so. 3:: won moo. 3.8. «on 9...; 3...... o~.o. w~o 3.: . we. 3...... «on .... ooo.~. 3.... E. 3.: 3o ~oo. on...» woo ..~o. SEN a: as: 3...... 3.8:. 2.2 uoo 3.9.. a... as... 5 9:... 3... E. Loo .no ooo. so..." a: moo. 3.5 an. o 03...... 3...... 8.8 no... on: no... one” no... ...... .o 3... moo. no.2 x8 «8. 86m x3 ~.~. on.o~ E0 .535 32.3 383: R3 goo 2.; «so osmo we... 8:... 3.... .5. 2... no ooo. 3% x3 2.. 3.3 goo ... 5&5... 3...... so "no 2;... ..oo one. an 9...: 3.... 5.. 3.: no ooo. 2...... as oo.. ......oN a; 55...... 32.... 3.3 .5 3.: xo~ show. no. ...: 8. 3... Non. on.~n x: ooo. mm.m~ 5.... EN 3.3 umm co Co on: 32...; 3.2 to 3.3 .5 8.8 am 9.385 3.... oz. No.9 .5 ooo. Ed .3 on... 3...... 5m .53.... 3...... m... ...... 5 3.3 .5 S. on non 9.: 3... m3. mm.m~ NS owe. «Non Non oww. 056m xoo Leanna 32.0.. .R . on «no no. ..n x~o co . on Non 3e: 9m. oofi~ no» ooo. om.o~ 8mm «mm. 8.3 8mm 9:5: 0.2.0.. ODHM> 03Hm> OSHM> m am 2 m am 2 m am 2 xmme 96.6 $3.: .27.: 32»: .37.: Son: .305 .ooouco .Hmuuco .omuc. msowo H GEAR umuuumom moowo umowuwm maowo Howucoo .nmoowo H mafia umouumom use umouowm .Howwcoo c4 homuauumluaom aquamanm «as: use oaoeom coozuom unanswemeoo .nlq wanes 226 I! _. .. FIE—In 95003.... no.8 goo 8.8 8.8 5.8 8n co: 3.... o8. 8.8 goo ooo. 8.8 8.8 ooo. 8.8 g8 .388 395. 8...: goo 8.8 8.3 no.8 goo 92o 3.: 8m. 8....— goo ooo. 8.8 8.8 ooo. 8.8 goo o 33 398.. No.8 goo 8.8 8.8 oo.on 8o 2.2: 3:. no... 8...: goo ooo. 8.8 8.8 98. no.8 g3 38.. 32.2 o 3 < 5..» 8:: g8 3.8 g8 8.8 g8 8553 3o: Noo. 8.8 goo ooo. 2.8 goo 8... 8.8 goo ooo.... 32.... 3.8g goo 8.8 goo 88m goo o2. 8.: 3o: 88. 8.8 g8 so. 2.8 go.. .5: 8.8 goo o 2.9.3. 32.: 959.3 88 goo 3.8 go 8.8 goo 82...: 3.... 8o. 88 goo ooo. 8.8 goo on. 3.8 goo 5.2:. 32.... 8o. g8 8.8 gt 8.8 goo 3o... 2... 3.: ggo ooo. 8.8 goo ooo. 8.8 goo 29.2: 32.8 accouuoo no.8 goo 2.8 goo No.8 g8 :58... 3.... 8o. 8.8 goo ooo. 8.8 g8 88. 8.8 goo 3:52 32...... no.2 8o 2 .8 goo no . 8 goo o: . .38 3o... ooo. N... : goo 8o. .2 .8 goo 88. 8.8 goo .888 32.: o. .8 goo 8.8 g8 no.3. g8 .5... 3o... ooo. No.8 goo .8. no.8 g8 o8. 3.8 g8 no. to: 320.. meager 05.2; mean.» m am 2 o no 2 m cm : xmoe osogo .oognz .oouoo .oogu: .uoguoo Amou: .omuoo .ooauc. .gmmuoo .oouc. maowo a 0689 unouwmom moowu amououm mocha Howucoo .mmaowo H 0248 uumuumom ecu ueouowm .Howucoo co aumuouumluaom o>owocmoo was: one Nassau coo3uom occqummeoo .vnq manna 227' oo.o~ goo oo.n~ goo gooo .oo o.ox ooo. no.o~ goo ooo. mo.n~ goo ooo.oo ns_.o oooeoo oo.o. goo o~.oo goo xooo .oo «_ox ooo. mm.oo goo ooo. oo.oo goo ooo.~o oa_.o noose. oo._~ goo oo.o. goo .og. ooo: oo._2 o..: . ooo. oo.oo goo ooo. oo.o goo o xuooxuoo ._oeuo oo._~ goo oo.o~ goo coo: ooo. no.o~ goo moo. no.o_ goo os_.o .uQEoooc_ o.oeoo oo.oo goo om.o goo .oo. ooo: oo__e o.ox ooo. oo.o goo ooo. .o.o goo n xuooxuoo ooosoo oo... goo mo.o goo «on: ooo. o~.oo goo ooo. on._o goo oe_.o oocc_ooo o_oeoo oo.on goo o~.on goo «on: ooo. no.oo goo ooo. oo.~o goo ago ou. oo goo o.oeao o~.oo goo no.oo goo o..: ooo. oo.oo goo ooo. ~o.oo goo oc_ooooo sooooo o.oeoo oo.o~ goo no.- goo «_oz ooo. oo.o~ goo ooo. on.o~ goo ooo..ooooo o.oeoo oo.~n goo oo.on goo moo: ooo. oo.oo goo ooo. oo.o~ goo ocooooo o.oeoo msaa> m am 2 usam> m on x xmms maouu “an": .ooumo ooouco @5080 m mafia “moon: .ooumo ooofiuco @5080 H mafia ummuumom ummuumom .mmaouu N mafia umouumom can a mafia ummuumom cw >0m0wuumuuamm Hmowwanm man: can mamamm cumsumm mcomflummaou .muq manna 228 oo.oo «om oo.o~ ooo ouaoauouo can: ooo. oo.o~ ooo ooo. oo.o~ ooo coauosoo>m «dogma om.oo ooo oo.ofi ooo ozone can: ooo. oo.- «Ho ooo. oo.oH ooo o coma oaoemo oo.ofi ooo oo.oo ooo ocoocoo was: ooo. mo.oo ooo ooo. o~.oo ooo musom «Anson m on o soon oo.~a ooo o~.oH ooo mucouooo «do: ooo. oo.oH ooo ooo. o~.oH ooo mooso «Anson . om.oo poo oo.~H ooo no: omoe moo: ooo. oo.oo woo ooo. oo.oH ooo o ocooomm maoemo mcmemo Ha.m wmm mm.o goo . uommEH was: ooo. oo.o ooo ooo. oo.o ooo assocox mooemo oo.H8 oflo oo.oH woo woo: ooo. oo.Ho moo ooo. Ho.oo ooo ooonumuoo mooemo mcumuumm oo.o~ ooo oo.o~ ooo umnuomz «Ho: ooo. oo.o~ woo ooo. oo.om ooo oooucmco mooemo oo.oH poo oo.oo ooo ocoxoou moo: ooo. oo.~o ooo ooo. No.8H ooo uooouso mooemo oo.o~ moo oH.o~ ooo ocsoo moo: ooo. oo.oo ooo ooo. oo.oo ooo can ouooo oooemo ma~m> m am 2 mzam> m am 2 xmms macho ooouz .oouoo Aoooux .oouo. .oouoo oooouco maouu N mews msouo H mafia youuuooo uouuuooo .mmsono m mafia umwuumom can H mafia ummuumom Ca wouowuumamamm m>fiuwnvoo man: can mamamm cwmzuom mcomwuwmaoo .mlq manna HICH T IGRN S «Mummmmmr 31293