CASE STUDY OF A CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM IN A LEISURE SKILL: THE ARCHERY SEGMENT OF THE OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION Dissertation fer the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRED J. SCHUETI’E 1973 LIB 1 I Y Michige irate ’ Univcr. lty This is to certify that the thesis entitled CASE STUDY OF A CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM IN A LEISURE SKILL: THE ARCHERY SEGMENT OF THE OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND R$9§§éIITI8N>y Fred J. Schuette has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Administration and Ph.D. de eein gr Higher Education / / I 7 4 4/4 1’1. ”111/ I Major professor I I '-:v"._ _; a; Date ’ *4 /Jy . I ABSTRACT CASE STUDY OF A CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM IN A LEISURE SKILL: THE ARCHERY SEGMENT OF THE OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION By Fred J. Schuette This study was designed to examine and describe the Outdoor Education Project's workshops for continuing professional education for better instruction in the leisure skill of archery during the developmental period of l960 through February of l973. The data for the study were collected from two sources: personal testimony and written records. The written records were retrieved from the Outdoor Education Project's files. The personal testimony data was retrieved from participants of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshop. A questionnaire was sent to participants of the Project's workshops and to balance the subjectivity of the responses to the questionnaire a taped telephone interview was also conducted. Literature on the development of a continuing education program, principles of learning and the essential elements of an innovative method of instruction were reviewed. From this review a series of thirteen questions were developed serving as a guide in the examination and description of the Project's workshop efforts. /\I ,(37 Fred J. Schuette a) Qé The data were gathered relating to each ofthe guiding questions. Two sets of recommendations are also included; the first set is for continuing education programs and the second set of recom- mendations serves as a guide to life-long learning. The principal conclusions from the study include: 1. The Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops goals and objectives were established by an Advisory Committee and through a continuous consultation of experts in archery. 2. The archery workshops were promoted by a broad based communication,system. 3. The strengths and weaknesses of the archery workshops were evaluated by an advisory committee, by verbal and written evaluations and by the participants and three research studies. 4. A majority of respondents indicated they planned to or had expanded their archery programs to include all or portions of the Project's method of instruction. 5. A majority of the respondents indicated they were better equipped to offer group instruction as a result of the workshop experience. 6. A majority of respondents indicated their programs improved as a result of the workshop experience. CASE STUDY OF A CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM IN A LEISURE SKILL: THE ARCHERY SEGMENT OF THE OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION By Fred J; Schuette A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 Copyright by FRED J. SCHUETTE l973 '- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to the chairman of his doctoral committee, Dr. Julian w. Smith, for his guidance, encouragement and understanding. To Dr. Howard S. Teitlebaum, director of the study, whose inspiration and professional guidance, my deep appreciation is expressed. Both of them truly provided the writer with the guidance needed to complete the study. The writer also extends his appreciation to Professor Russell J. Kleis for his constructive criticism and encouragement. To Drs. G. w. Mouser and Troy L- Stearns appreciation is expressed for their willingness to serve on the graduate committee. To my wife, Nancy, for her encouragement and understanding, my love. To our children, Jeffry, Cynthia, Beth and Edward, a special thank you for their patience during the study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION The Project Studied . Purpose of the Study . Limitation of the Study Definition of Terms . . Overview of the Dissertation . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . Development of a Continuing Education Program Learning Principles . . . . . Characteristics of an Innovation METHODOLOGY Sources of Data . . Procedures for Data Collection Procedures for Analysis of Data . HISTORY AND METHOD OF ARCHERY INSTRUCTION Brief History of the Outdoor Education Project . Archery Segment of the Outdoor Education Project Purposes and Objectives of Operation Archery Workshop Methods and Materials . Research The Outdoor Education Project' 5 Method of Archery Instruction . Summary . PERSONAL TESTIMONY Introduction Presentation of Data Summary . Findings Page vii ._.1 0000034:- Chapter Page VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . lOZ Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOZ Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Suggestions for Further Study . . . ‘. . . . . 107 Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . . l08 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO9 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll5 iv Table 10. ll. l2. LIST OF TABLES Comparison of responses to three questions from telephone interview and questionnaire . . Category breakdown of mailed questionnaire Distribution of workshop participants with and without prior instruction relative to subsequent archery instruction Distribution of workshop participants who had subsequent archery instruction relative to their prior instruction. Distribution of workshop participants attending subsequent instruction in relationship to a time lapse Respondents indicating if they had conducted workshops or assisted colleagues with archery instruction . Distribution of workshop participants conducting work- shops or assisting colleagues with archery instruction in relationship to a time lapse Participants who plan to expand or have expanded their programs to include all or portions of method of instruction . . . . . . . Participants who plan to expand or have expanded their programs to include all or portions of method of instruction in relationship to elapsed time Participants reporting they were better equipped to offer group instruction after workshop Participants opinion on their program improvement as a result of their workshop experience Participants opinion on their program improvement as a result of their workshop experience in relationship to a time lapse Page 84 85 87 87 88 89 90 9T 93 94 94 96 Table 13. I4. I5. I6. I7. Types of bows used in archery programs as reported by the Project's workshop participants and telephone inter- viewees . . . . . . . . . Bow draw weights used in archery programs reported by the Project's workshop participants and telephone interviewees . . . Types of arrows used in archery programs as reported by the Project's workshop participants and telephone interviewees . . . . . . . . . Location of archery programs as reported by the Project's workshop participants and telephone interviewees . Backstop net used in archery programs as reported by the Project's workshop participants and telephone interviewees . . . . . . . . vi Page I34 I34 I37 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Inquiry Concerning Results of Archery Instructors Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l16 B. Letter to Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . ll9 C. Telephone Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lZl D. Letter of Permission . . . . . . . . . . . . . l24 E. Outdoor Education Project Three Day Archery Workshop . . l26 F. Type of Archery Equipment Being Used by Those Having Attended an Outdoor Education Project's Archery Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32 G. Archery--A Planning Guide for Group and Individual Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I38 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The age-old dream of man has been for leisure--a chance to let down, to do something he has always wanted to do. He has dreamed of a haven where the winds and waves no longer will beat on his frail craft. There would be happy days, no work to do, no schedule to meet, no struggle. It would be a time to realize a vague, lifelong ambition, to write, to paint a picture, to take a trip to Rio, even to catch that big fish he has dreamed about. President Garfield said the whole history of humanity could be described as a struggle to answer two questions: One, how do we gain a little leisure from our toil? And two, what do we do with leisure once we get it? Today we're primarily concerned with the second question in the United States. Historically the worthy use of leisure has been recognized as one of the seven cardinal objectives of education. In a more recent statement by the Educational Policies Commission the constructive use of man's free time is recognized. The worthy use of leisure is related to the individual's knowledge, understanding, and capacity to choose, from among all the activities to which his time can be devoted, those which contribute to the achievement of his purposes and to the satisfaction of his needs. On these bases, the individual can become aware of the external pressures which compete for his attention, moderate the influence of these pressures, and make wise choices for himself. His recreation. ranging from hobbies to sports to intellectual activity pursued for its own sake, can conform to his own concepts of constructive use of time.2 PO Transition and change characterize the present culture, particularly in the Western World. One of the major changes result- ing from the Industrial Revolution and modern technology is the relationship of work and leisure which is affecting the nature of life. There is evidence that for many Americans, a major emphasis upon leisure is replacing the work ethic which for so long has governed life in this and other countries of the Western World. The impending age of leisure, during this transitional period, is greatly influencing the nature and extent of education. For just as the balance between work and leisure is shifting, the time periods for education are shifting to produce what is being called life long or continuing education. A Task Force on Lifelong Education at Michigan State University in its report to the President identified several forces as greatly influencing the demand for lifelong learning opportunities: I. Technological advances that are reshaping daily existence; 2. Rising personal expectations and greatly increased leisure time; and 3. The emergence of new individual and group life styles.3 Immersed in the individual's life style of today is the pursuit of leisure. . . . A new age of leisure is almost here. Material needs are satisfied with less and less effort. Marginal chores are getting done with time to spare. The leisure hours just around the corner are uncommitted hours. In the new era, in which men are now potentially freed from the grinding necessities, education becomes an end . . . .4 The worthy use of leisure tine is a question of major impor- tance in today's society. The ways in which the question is resolved will have a significant inpact on the overall quality of life. Leisure is no longer confined solely to a social and aristocratic elite. Although leisure has always been a fringe benefit in the history of mankind, now it is moving into the center of life, threatening to replace work as the basis of culture. Literally a revolution has occurred-~a turning around—~for what was on the 5 periphery is now at the heart of man's daily existence. It is ironic that when the realization of man's dream for leisure is becoming a reality in our country, and when leisure is becoming so significant in our lives, we are not prepared to take advantage of its full potential. The society which has created the era of leisure has failed largely to prepare people to use it or to provide adequate resources for individual and family pursuits. In a sense, we are in the proverbial dilemma, recreation- wise, "all dressed and no place to go." It is in this setting that educational institutions must pro- vide continuous opportunities for learning at all age levels, and particularly for adults who are unprepared to make constructive use of the free time which is becoming increasingly available and increasingly important. What is required is continual expansion of knowledge, including the acquisition of skills to meet the needs of the changing times. For our society to make the best choices concerning their use of leisure time, the adequacy and availability of continuing education programs will have a significant impact. Thus, the need is imperative for a trained cadre of professional leaders who can implement updating skill development programs for both youth and adults. Information is needed on successful methods of teaching skills to adults and leisure skill leaders, strategies for the implementation of leisure skill programs, and organizational patterns by which leisure skill programs are conducted. There have been relatively few studies of how adults may be effectively taught leisure-related skills. The intent of this study has been to contribute worthwhile information for the teaching of leisure skills to adults and youth in the hope of providing new choices for society in a changing time. This dissertation describes how adults can be effectively taught a leisure skill, archery. It is a case study of a pioneering project designed to prepare leaders, through continuing professional education, to develop programs and such skill. Hopefully it will contribute to knowledge about leader- ship development as a part of the diffusion process through a con- tinuing education program. The Project Studied Recognizing the increasing groundswell of all forms of leisure-related pursuits, particularly relating to outdoor sports and skills, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation in cooperation with Michigan State University initiated, in 1955, a special venture, entitled the Outdoor Education Project. Subsequently, Julian W. Smith was selected as director of the project. The purposes of the project were: the development of leadership in outdoor education; the interpretation of outdoor education; the implementation of programs in schools and colleges; and the prepara- tion and distribution of instructional materials in outdoor education. The project has become an outstanding example of cooperation between business, industry, and continuing professional education. It has provided an arena for various agencies and businesses concerned with the outdoors to develop curriculum innovations and professional leadership for outdoor education programs. A number of workshops have been held throughout the country on both regional and state levels where schools, colleges, and state departments of education have asked for leadership training and program development. In the regional workshops, state teams and key leaders attend. They in turn develop similar leadership training activities in their local communities and states. The Project assists in the workshops by providing consultants, equipment, and other assistance depending on the circumstances. The workshop programs are extensive and practical, combining instruction and participation in many activities such as casting, archery, shooting, lapidary, and other outdoor activities. The idea of teaching activities of lifelong value for children, youth, and adults is not a new concept in education, but the emphasis on outdoor education programs within the curriculum is a more recent and innovative development. In addition to the workshops and clinics the Project dissemi- nates information and interprets programs through conventions, conferences, and exhibits. The development of resource materials and teaching aids in various related outdoor skill areas has assisted those interested in the development of outdoor education programs. In l960 the scope of the Outdoor Education Project's outdoor skills was broadened to include archery as one of the major emphases. Initially one manufacturer and a number of archery experts were involved in the development of the archery segment of the Project known as "Operation Archery." In l966 the American Archery Council became one of the cooperating organizations and through this united effort a large number of archery teachers and recreation leaders have been involved in workshops and clinics. From the Project's efforts new programs have been developed; existing programs have been changed; instructional materials have been prepared and distributed; and archery instruction has been affected. Purpose of the Study This has been a case study of continuing education for leaders in and for a lesiure skill. Its purpose has been to examine and describe the Outdoor Education Project's workshops for developing leaders of instruction in the leisure skill of archery. Three ingredi- ents of a continuing education program were chosen as approaches for the examination of the archery segment of the Outdoor Education Project. The three are: development of program; principles of learn- ing involved; and essential elements of an innovative method of instruction. A series of questions relating to the three major ingredients were developed from a review of literature in Chapter II. They were used to facilitate the examination of the content and procedures used in the Outdoor Education Project workshops. Program Planning and Development I. What were the objectives of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops and who established them? Program Operation 2. G"! How were the goals and objectives of the workshops presented to the participants? What methods of communication were employed in promoting the archery workshops? How was learning readiness of the workshop participant taken into account? Were opportunities provided to accommodate differences in the rate of learning? Were incentives provided to motivate the participant? Was the participant able to observe the object and the idea components of the method of instruction? Did the participant have the opportunity to experience feedback? Program Evaluation 9. IO. II. I2. I3. What evidence indicates that needs were satisfied by this method of instruction? Did the method of instruction lend itself to evaluation by the participant? What advantages of this method of instruction were perceived by the participant? Has the learning affected the participant's behavior as evidenced by his use of his newly acquired knowledge in his program? How were the strengths and weaknesses of the planned workshop programs evaluated by the Project? Limitation of the Study The study has been limited in the time frame of I960, the birth of the archery segment of the Outdoor Education Project, to February 28, 1973. This was the last date of an archery workshop prior to the mailing of the questionnaire. No attempt has been made to extend the study beyond that date although the project continues to function at the present time and its basic premise and procedures remain essentially the same as these earlier in time. The writer has had a long and close association with the Outdoor Education Project and the archery segment. This has obviously represented a potential source of bias. However, it is believed that an important off-setting effect of that association has been a poten- tial for greater insight and acceptability during the investigation. A survey of workshop participants and an examination of the archery segment's records have combined with the author's own intimate acquaintance with the Project as principal sources of data for addressing the purpose of the study. The mailed questionnaire survey and follow-up telephone inter- view which have contributed the major portion of the research data, were conducted in an effort to determine the influence of the method of instruction on the participants who attended the Project's archery workshops from 1969 to February of l973. Neither the questionnaire nor other efforts of the study have been concerned with any other Project activities, including the Project clinics which are mentioned briefly in a later discussion. The examination of the Project's records was conducted in an effort to find how the archery program was planned and developed. The writer's own acquaintance with the Project and the archery segment development provides an insight for investigating important factors. Definition of Terms Leisure as referred to in this dissertation means activities of one's own choosing which he indulges in during his free time as contrasted to activities required by conditions of his profession or other employment. Continuing education, defined appropriately for this study by Coolie Verner, is: . a relationship between an educational agent and a learner in which the agent selects, arranges, and continuously directs a sequence of progressive tasks that provide systematic experience to achieve learning for those whose participation in such activities is subsidiary and supplemental to a primary productive role in society. Workshops as used in the text of the study: . . bring together individuals with a common interest and background to engage in educational experiences, attitudes, and skills as they develop plans and programs of common interest. Consulting experts are used but the primary burden of providing learning experiences is borne by the participants. General sessions and face to face discussion groups are used.8 In addition the workshops, as they have been implemented, have been intensive, participation oriented, and of short duration, i.e., two to three days in length. Leadership development is viewed as the process through which persons responsible for conducting programs for their respective agencies develop requisite knowledge for leadership IO through continuing education programs designed for the acquisition of learning principles, methods and techniques of teaching special subject matter and other content appropriate to the "students" and the agencies' programs. Innovation has been defined by Rogers as ”an idea, practice, 9 or object perceived as new by an individual." Overview of the Dissertation Chapter I has presented a rationale concerning the relation- ship between leisure and lifelong learning together with the role of continuing professional education in the worthy use of leisure time. It has also described the nature and purposes of the study, identified certain limitations and provided definitions for especially signifi- cant terms. Chapter II presents a review of literature related to relevant learning principles, the development of continuing education programs and a framework for examining the elements of an innovation. Chapter III presents the methodology of this historical descriptive case study. It describes the research procedures employed in the collection and analysis of data. Chapter IV presents a general historical description of the Outdoor Education Project and subsequently the history of the archery segment, the procedures in the organization of the archery workshops, the basic data for program planning and operation and operant learning principles. II Chapter V presents data from the questionnaires and the telephone interviews with the writer's interpretation of the findings as they relate to specified learning principles and elements of an innovation. Chapter VI provides a summary, conclusions, generalizations, recommendations, and suggestions for further study. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I 1Jay B. Nash, Philosophy of Recreation and Leisure (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, Publishers, l960), p. 20. 2Educational Policies Commission, The Central Purpose of Amergcan Education (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, l96l . 3President's Task Force on Lifelong Education, The Lifelong University: A Report to the President (East Lansing: Michigan State University, l9737jvp. l. 4Theodore J. Shannon and Clarence A. Schoenfeld, University Extension (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., l965), p. lO4. 5Robert Lee, Religion and Leisure in America: A Study in Four Dimensions (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, I964), p. l9. 6Julian W. Smith, "Recreation for Young America," Trans- actions of the Twenty-Seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, l962), p. 20. 7Coolie Verner as quoted in Handbook of Adult Education, ed. by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker, and J. R. Kidd (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970), pp. 49-50. 8Jack London, "Program Development in Adult Education, in Handbook of Adult Education in the United States, ed. by Malcolm S. Knowles (Washington, D.C.: Adult Education of the U.S.A., l960), p. 70. 9Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communications of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York: The Free Press, l97lT, p. l9. I2 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In order to identify the basic premises of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops and the method of instruction the literature was reviewed in three areas: program development for continuing education; selected principles of learning; and elements appropriate to analytical study of innovation. Continuing education has become an increasingly significant segment of our present day educational system. Projections for 1974 indicate that ”There will be more adults attending some type of training program than young people in the formal system."1 Gilford, in early 1974, confirms those projections: Adult education is not a trivial sector of American educa- tion. In 1971-72 there were 15,734,000 individual adult education participants, nearly double the number of college students enrolled for degree credit (opening Fall enrollment was 8,116,000), and 600,000 more than the number of high school students enrolled in grades 9 to 12 (Fall enrollment was 15,116,000).2 This vast number of adults who are seeking a variety of learning experiences fall into one or some combination of three classifications according to Cyril O. Houle: ". . . (1) the goal oriented; (2) the learning oriented; and (3) the activity oriented."3 I3 14 The goal oriented individual has a specific skill or knowledge he wishes to master, as in the case of teachers who attempt to maintain current knowledge of their chosen profession. The learning oriented person is interested in learning and self- fulfillment for its own sake. The activity oriented individual is interested in activities because they provide the opportunity for meeting and being with people. The specific needs of the prospective adult learners must be recognized, planned for, and satisfied. To do that requires a plan or coordinated effort. Development of a Continuing Education Program The planning process in the development of a continuing education program should be a cooperative effort among the sponsoring agency, clientele, and resource personnel. The program may be viewed as a single entity or a series of activities that sequentially make up a planned program. All things considered, systematic and continuing study of the community by the educator in cooperation with repre- sentative citizens is the best means yet devised for identifying educational needs and planning socially useful adult education programs in a community.4 The step by step planning of the program should include: (1) selection of a committee for developing the program in steps two through five; (2) determining needs and interests of the target population; (3) developing educational objectives; (4) developing the educational experiences that will be most appropriate in meeting the educational objectives; and (5) establishing a method for program evaluation. I5 1. Selection of the Program Development Committee To be viable the program cannot be developed and implemented by personnel isolated from the clientele it purports to serve. A committee should be developed in cooperation with those agencies, organizations, businesses, and industries that would be affected by the program.5 In identifying critical factors that effect the continuing education programs of universities Shannon and Schoenfeld list the importance of "Viable communication to and from, and working relation- ship with, individual students, clientele groups, and sister agencies."6 Tyler recommends the formation of a separate planning com- mittee, in cooperation with faculty and lay groups, to carry out feasibility studies, determine educational goals, gather appropriate resources, identify the clientele, plan the learning experiences, and evaluate the program.7 A similar stance.is taken by Sheats, Jayne, and Spence who recommend working with a planning committee in the development of the program.8 2. Determining Needs and Interests of the Target Eppulation . A need represents an imbalance, a lack of adjustment or a gap between a present situation or state of being and a new or changed set of conditions assumed to be more desirable . . . . This interpretation provides a framework which can be useful in the development of adult education programs. In utilizing this framework it is necessary to be able to compare what is (the present situation) with what should be—-the more desirable condition.9 I6 The responsibility of determining the needs of the population to be served ultimately rests with the administrator in charge of the program. The foundation upon which needs are based should include knowledge of the clientele, the social setting in which they are based, IO and the proposed subject matter. This information can be secured through interviews, informal conversations, meeting census, individual questionnaires, and other data gathering devices. On the other hand, if the program is limited to needs recognized by adults, it is likely to remain underdeveloped or grow too slowly. The director who tries everything under the sun without adequately determining need, however, will undoubtedly waste considerable time and money. To avoid these two extremes, the director must understand not only the needs felt by adults but those which they may not recognize. This skill comes best with experience, although the study of methods used by successful directors give important clues.II The program is ultimately based upon what the sources of information have provided about the present status of the clientele. The next step is determining what the programs should contribute in changing the status of the clientele by establishing a set of educa- tional objectives. 3. Developinngducational Objectives It is important during the development of the educational objectives to distinguish between the broad statements and the specific outcomes of the program or project. The broad statements should reflect the scope of the educational institution. The specific educational objectives are the statements made as to what the individual is to achieve or experience when participating in the program. I7 The establishment of the program's specific objectives should reflect the type of behavioral change that is contemplated. There are three types of behavior and they should be understood by those developing the specific objectives. Learning consists of changes in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective behaviors of an individual. Cognitive behaviors include thinking, reasoning, solving problems, remembering, learning concepts or principles; and using concepts or principles to understand new experience(s). Psychomotor behaviors include all muscular activity such as walking, handwriting, typewriting, athletics, and speech. Affective behaviors include attitude, emotions, values, interest, and motives . . . .12 The development of the program will be enhanced by the under- standing of behavioral change which is desired as the result of learning. The quality of judgements made about these matters has lasting impact upon the overall effectiveness of the educational program; the preciseness with which objectives are determined often affects the degree to which programs 1 are effective in bringing about desired behavioral change. 3 4. Developing the Educational Experiences That Will be Most Appropriate in Meeting the Educational Objectives By the careful consideration of the specific objectives that have been developed, a clear instructional plan must be established to meet those objectives. An understanding of how an individual learns, reviewed later in this chapter, is an essential element. DeCecco recognizes three elements that are essential for learning to take place: . the learner, the stimulus or stimulus situation, and the response."14 I8 The desired responses are generally the stated objectives of the program and the learners constitute the target population. The stimulus or stimulus situation becomes the focal point in instruction if it is to meet the educational objectives. Consequently, the learning experiences that will best meet and continue to meet these objectives need to be be devised. To facilitate the learning process the experiences should be designed to actively involve the learner. It is not enough to insist upon the necessity of experience, nor even of activity in experience. Everything depends upon the quality of the experience which is had . . . . The effect of an experience is not borne on its face. It sets a problem to the educator. It is his business to arrange from the kind of experiences which, while they do not repel the student, but rather engage his activities are nevertheless, more than immediately enjoyable since they promote having desirable future experiences. Two elements should be considered in the design of the experiences: the type of meeting or program and the method of instruction that is to be employed. The type of meeting is influenced by the subject, the specific objectives to be covered and the target population to be reached. Morgan and others list the following types of programs or meetings that may be considered: institutes, conven- tions, conferences, workshops, seminars, short courses, lecture series, formal classes, and Open discussion.1 In the same vein Neff lists a number of instructional methods that are employed by adult educators to facilitate learning: discus- sion, lecture, buzz groups, forum, film forum, debate, panel, symposium, brainstorming, circular response, and demonstration.17 Careful selection and use of resource materials and audio- visual aids should be considered, where appropriate. I9 Used as means, rather than ends in themselves, these innovations can free the educator from his traditional role of information giving to that of designer of the learning environment. This requires that the educator have at his disposal a variety of supportive services, supplies and materials to be used as instructional resources.I8 A special effort should be made to provide the proper physical setting for the program; its selection should be on the basis of its contribution to the entire learning process. To augment the physical setting the teacher should be cogni- zant of the proper learning atmosphere. Combs and Snygg emphasize the importance of providing an atmosphere conducive to learning, fostered through the sincerity and integrity of the teacher by acceptance, friendliness, and warmth shown to the learner.19 Neff stresses such a learning environment when he states, "The teacher's attitude, acceptance, and respect for personality will be contagious. Every effort should be made at all times, to avoid any embarrassment on the part of the student.”20 5. Establishing a Method for Progpam Evaluation The basic purpose of program evaluation is to improve the program. The evaluation should determine if the specific educational objectives are being attained as formulated in the program by con- sidering the following: . . (1) clear, concise objectives or statements of intended educational ends to be attained, (2) bench mark or pre- program measures of the behavior(s) or behavioral patterns of the learner prior to his exposure to the educational program; and (3) measures of the behavioral patterns of the learner after completion of the educational program.2I 20 There are basically three forms of evaluation based on their degree of precision: formal, informal, and semi-formal. Informal evaluation is done, as the term implies, on an informal basis through the teacher, informal testing and talking with learners, observation of behavioral changes on the part of the learner 'outside the instructional setting and advice of other instructors or supervisors. Formal evaluation is the most precise and exacting type of evaluation. It uses science-based procedures and instruments to gather data and often uses sophisticated procedures in analyzing and interpreting the data pertinent to the study. Such an undertaking will usually require a specialist in educational research to assist the average teacher. It is usually the most productive and likely to be the most expensive form of program evaluation. Semi-formal evaluations are the middle-of-the-road methods used to gather and interpret information for program improvement. The methods employed can be used by the teacher to evaluate: . . . the quality of his teaching and the achievement of his students. Much of the evidence in semi-formal evaluation comes from these sources: (1) reliable and valid tests, (2) surveys to determine changes in practice, (3) objective scales and rating sheets, and (4) the judgement of experts. It will be important to the educator evaluating the program to consider several basic criteria. First, the gathering of data should provide evidence of the program's performance relative to goals. Second, the benefits of the evaluation should be worth the cost of the evaluation. Third, the frequency of the evaluation depends on what is being evaluated and the use of the evidence 2I gathered. Fourth, the data gathered should provide information for internal consideration for improvement of the program. Fifth, those who are to be affected by the evaluation should be involved in the process. Sixth, the objectivity of the evaluation may require outside help to remove personal bias. Seventh, a set of standards should be secured or established as a norm against which to compare the informa- tion gathered. Eighth, the information gathered should provide evidence of the behavioral outcomes. Ninth, the evaluation should assess the value of the program and commitment to it. Learning principles as a necessary part of instructional design is the second of the three areas to be considered in this review. Learning Principles The learner responds to experiences as a unit. Each experience tends to modify the individual's cognitive, psychomotor, and affective behavior. The meanings the learner draws from his experiences influence his subsequent behavior. To assist those responsible for the learning environment and for achieving the goals of the educational program certain basic principles of learning need to be understood and applied. . In 1964 a set of learning principles were selected by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Wisconsin as a guide for educators.23 In considering these principles views were included from various writers in the field of learning. 22 1. Learning is governed by the readiness of the learner. Readiness as used in this context includes entering behavior or " . . . the present knowledge of a particular student in relation to some future status his teacher wants him to attain."24 Kelley and Rasey define readiness to include primarily attitude, habit and information possessed by the learner at the time of a new experience or encounter, thus acknowledging the diversity of individuals within a given setting. The possibility of modification of these controlling structures is what makes growth possible throughout life. Attitude and habit are sometimes so strongly built that they are hard to change, but there is none so strong that it will not yield to certain perceptive experiences.25 The status of adults in a given situation, each with a dif- ferent background of attitude, habit, and information thus present a very wide range of readiness which may, for some, contribute to a constraint upon learning. But adult education, by its nature, deals much of the time with changing behavior patterns which are already organized and habitual. To say that a major condition for learning is that the student recognize the inadequacy of his present behavior is to put in particular and concrete form the problem of motivation for this kind of learning. The major resistance to change in this context is the defensiveness aroused on behalf of already established behaviors, and the fundamental requirement for success is the provision of sufficient security for the student to permit him to relax his defensive posture.25 This rather typical feature of groups of adult learners may have contributed to the conclusion by Edward L. Thorndike in his subsidiary laws of learning, that learning is guided by the person's set or attitude, both his cultural and his momentary one. Those factors 23 also determine both what he will prefer to do and if a given experience will satisfy or annoy him.27 The introduction of a new experience to a group of adults with a wide variety in scope and depth of previous experiences must be carefully organized and presented to facilitate individual learning. 2. Intent to learn is necessary for purposeful learning. Motivational factors determine the learner's desire to seek knowledge and skills. These include the needs to satisfy biological, social, or emotional deficiencies. The knowledge of an attainable goal encourages perseverance but failure or the past experience of failure may contribute to hesitancy in attempting a new experience. 0011 listed a number of motivational factors contributing to learning: . . relevant motives include both general and specific ones; for example, desire to learn, need for achievement (general), desire for a reward or for avoidance of a threatened punish- ment (specific). Motivation that is too intense (especially pain, fear, and anxiety) may be accompanied by distracting emotional states. . . . Reward is usually preferable to learning under punishment. Correspondingly, learning moti- vated by success is preferable to learning motivated by , failure. . . . Intrinsic motivation is preferable to learning under extrinsic motivation.29 Jerome S. Bruner speaks of the need for creating a motiva- tional setting by providing interesting and longer sessions which produce "increased power and understanding if the person is to be t."30 encouraged to move to a next episode with zes Harry L. Miller relates the importance of "togetherness" in learning situations. 24 The heterogeneity of adult groups and a residential setting has con- siderable linkage to behavioral change. Learning is change in behavior, and we tend . . . to resist change. Desirable change becomes more acceptable to us if other individuals who are important to us are willing to accept it at the same time--if the change is group- supported.3I The desire for self-fulfillment or self-actualization is one of the five needs in a hierarchy described by Abraham H. Maslow. He states that the need for self-actualization motivates the indi- vidual to fulfill his potentialities and to make good use of his 32 abilities and skills. "What man pap_be, he must." He characterizes self-actualization needs as the highest level of needs and asserts that those pursuing them are basically satisfied people.33 Self concept is learned by experiences both in and out of the educational system (life). The real motivational factor that makes the difference, according to Arthur W. Combs, is that "People learn that they are able, not from failure, but from success."34 3. A person tends to believe according to how he perceives a situation.35 Each person has his own perception of the world because each has a different environment and a different accumulation of previous experiences. The psychological self . . . continues to grow throughout life . . . . We feed the psychological self through the perceptive process. This is what comes into consciousness when stimuli from the environment impinge on the organism. . . . The quality of the perceptive stuff of growth there- fore determines the quality of the behavior of the individual.36 25 Therefore, three important ingredients that must be present to produce a situation that is perceived as a valuable experience are: an early and direct experience that produces an I'I can” attitude by the learner, the learner seeing himself as an adequate and effective person, and assisting the learner in a personal search for meaning and to help him discover himself as a person in the given situation.37 The goals and objectives to be reached by the learner must be clear, understandable, attainable, and personal. 4. Goals must be clearly in mind and accepted by the learner if adequate learning is to take place.38 The need to have a goal that is attainable to the individual, thus commensurate with the learner's individual ability and needs, is important for learning to take place. The learner should be actively involved as his achievement is influenced by his desire to reach his goal. The goals most helpful in inspiring learning are intrinsic ones, implicit in the learning itself; immediate goals, as opposed to deferred ones; and major goals rather than minor ones. The learner's perception of self-fulfillment in respect to a given goal is an important factor in the learning process. Combs states that: The things toward which people aspire will, in the final analysis, depend upon the degree to which they perceive goals as contributing to the maintenance and the enhance- ment of the self.40 26 5. Learning varies with the individual.41 Individual differences among learners must be acknowledged by adapting goals to be effective for different individuals. Similarly, alternate goals should be provided within a given situation to help facilitate the choosing and reaching of goals by different individuals. Irving Lorge, in setting principles for satisfying learning experiences for adults, states the importance of recognizing the greater individual differences that exist among adults in comparison to children or youth.42 Contributing to the individual rate of learning is the physical environment in which adults have lived. The perceptions of the individual are contributing factors that affect the individual's ability to understand new experiences, for new experiences can only be understood to the extent of the individual's prior knowledge. As Combs and Snygg state, ”What is perceived is what we have learned to , . . 43 perce1ve as a result of our prev1ous exper1ences.” Thus, the learning varies with an individual's past experiences. Each of the four previously stated learning principles is a contributing factor that affects the learning of the individual. Con- sequently, the purposeful awareness and inclusion of such principles is required if an educational program is to effectively contribute to the learning of each individual in it. In Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, the authors, Combs, Kelley, Rogers, and Maslow state: . learning is affected by a positive view of self, by openness to experience, by identification with others, by the student's goals and values and the process of becoming in which he is engaged. They speak, too, of personal feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and of student's meanings about facts.44 27 The authors stress a variety of factors which affect learning but emphasize the fully functioning person, the adequate person, as learning through his whole personality.45 DeCecco describes four factors or concepts that influence the rate of learning: readiness, maturation, individual difference 46 and personality. "Learning builds on learning in the way success builds on success. When the foundation blocks are missing, future COPSFTUCtIOOa If possible at all, is a very precarious affair."47 6. Learning is useful when a person can retain and apply it to new situations.48 The ability to use something that is learned in a new or dif- ferent situation is the transfer of learning. The retention of what has been learned is the amount of learned material remaining over a period of time. The learner's motivation for learning and his active participation in the process fosters and improves retention. "Mean- ingfulness influences both learning and retention. The higher the meaningfulness the more rapid the learning and the longer the materials are retained."49 The transfer of learning or use of knowledge gained in the classroom to a real life situation is, according to Doll, dependent on the learner's understanding the fundamentals of that knowledge. "Transfer of training, so long argued in American education, seems to proceed best when learners understand the fundamentals of what they are learning and transferring."50 28 7. The kind, the extent, and the validity of evaluation affect present and subsequent learnings.5I The learner is influenced by the Opportunities he has to evaluate his progress. Evaluation encompasses the individual's recognition of his level of performance, motivation for learning, and readiness to learn. The opportunity for interaction with others in discussion and problem solving contributes to this personal assessment. The best type or kind of evaluation for a skill, according to DeCecco, is one that involves the student's own evaluation or per- formance. During the early stages of skill learning external and extrinsic feedback is essential to the learner. As the learner's skill progresses and he becomes more self-reliant the opportunity for intrinsic and internal feedback becomes an important ingredient for better performance.52 Feedback not only enhances immediate learning but affects motivation for future learning. The withdrawal of feedback causes such effects as student displeasure, boredom, loss of keenness and tardiness. Feedback is an important factor associated with learning a skill and is perhaps one of the most reliable and universally tested principles of modern psychology. The most effective feedback is immediate and this information is enhanced when preceded by an orientation prior to a performance.53 The third of three areas to be considered in determining the basic premises upon which the Outdoor Education Project's 29 archery workshops reside is the elements considered essential to an innovation. Characteristics of an Innovation The characteristics of an innovation are themselves an important consideration to be accounted for if innovations are to be ultimately adopted by members of a social system. Until recently there had not been an accepted standard classification to describe the characteristics of an innovation. Recognizing this fact and acknowledging that the make up of an innovation affects the reaction 4 r to it, Rogers established five "attributes of innovations"J which are closely related to their adoption. 1. Relative Advantgge "The relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation "55 Con- is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes. siderations that would provide the innovation with this attribute would be: cost (both initial and continued), immediacy of reward, low risk, a decrease in discomfort, savings in time and effort, and social approval. 2. Compatibility "The compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experience, and 56 The degree to which this innovation fits needs of the receivers." a situation and satisfies either a perceived or real need is an essential ingredient to adoption. 3O 3. Complexity "Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use."57 All innovations fall on a continuum, between simplicity and complexity. Those innova- tions that are perceived as difficult to understand and master are slow to be adopted. The receiver of an innovation must understand the innovation and be comfortable when using it if it is to be adopted. Part of the work Of the instructor is to reduce complex tasks to their more simple components, thus contributing to early feelings Of success. "Activities and techniques which result in success and an increased feeling Of self-esteem will be repeated; activities which result in failure or humiliation are avoided."58 4. 'Trialabilipy ”Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis."59 The Opportunity to test new ideas allows the individual an Opportunity for trial and evalua- tion. Innovations that must be accepted or rejected without trial are far less likely to be adopted. The Opportunity for firsthand experience with a new idea, affording discussion and experimentation will, assuming that it proves satisfying, enhance adoption. 5. Observabilipy "Observability is the degree to which the results Of an 60 Seeing is believing is more innovation are visible to others." than idle conversation, for the acceptance Of a new idea is also dependent on the Observability Of the innovation. The innovation 31 that lends itself to be more observable, e.g. through demonstrations, tends to be more widely diffused. The preemergent weed killer would be an example Of an innovation that does not directly meet the condi- tionof Observability. The acceptance or rejection Of an idea or innovation is not an immediate or sudden decision but "occurs over a period Of time and consists of a series of actions."61 Together with favorable attributes the innovation must be presented to potential adoptors by some type Of communication channel. Rogers identifies two such channels: mass media and interpersonal 62 The mass media involves the transmission of ideas without channels. any direct personal contact to a large audience; whereas the inter— personal channel involves a face-tO-face communication. These methods may be used to compliment one another. TO be most effective the mass media communication should generally precede the interpersonal. "Mass media channels are relatively more important in the persuasion function in the innovation decision process."63 The three broad concept areas program development, learning principles and innovation diffusion in continuing education as reviewed in this chapter will provide the basis upon which the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops will be examined. In the following chapter the procedures for Obtaining and analyzing data are described. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER II 1Jack London, "The Social Setting for Adult Education," in Handbook of Adult Education, ed. by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker, and J. R. Kidd (New York: The Macmillan CO., 1970), p. 11. 2Dorothy M. Gilford, "The Non Collegiate Sector: Statistical Snapshots Of Adult Continuing Education," Address presented at the 29th National Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 11, 1974, p. l. 3Cyril O. Houle, The Inquiripg Mind (Madison, Wisconsin: The University Press, 1961), pp. 15-30. 4Sammuel E. Hand, "Identification of Needs and Resources," in Administration Of Continuing Education, ed. by Nathan C. Shaw (Washington, D.C.: National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education, 1969), p. 149. 5Carl E. Minich, "Major Curriculum Areas and Program Concerns," in Administration Of Continuing Education, ed. by Nathan C. Shaw (Washington D.C.: National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education, 1969), p. 184. 6Theodore J. Shannon and Clarence A. Schoenfeld, Universipy Extension (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965), p. 65. 7Ralph W. Tyler, "An Evaluation Of General Extension in Land Grant Institutions," in Proceedings of the American Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, VOl. 11 (Kansas City: The Association, 1961), ppTTl47-153. 8Paul H. Sheats, Clarence D. Jayne, and Ralph B. Spence, Adult Education: The Community Approach (New York: The Dryden Press, 1953), pp. 312—320. - 9Patrick G. Boyle and Irwin R. Jahns, "Program Development and Evaluation," Handbook Of Adult Education, ed. by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker, and J. R. Kidd (New York: The Macmillan CO., 1970), p. 61. IO Ibid., p. 62. 32 33 11Homer Kempfer, Adult Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 62. 12State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Learning Principles (Madison, Wisconsin: Issued by the State Superintendent ofTPublic Instruction, 1964), p. 1. 13Patrick G. Boyle and Irwin R. Jahns, "Program Development and Evaluation," Handbook Of Adult Education, ed. by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker, and J. R. Kidd (New York: The Macmillan CO., 1970). p. 65. 14John P. DeCecco, The Psychology Of Learning and Instruction: Educational Psychology_(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968). p. 246. 15John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 27. 16Barton Morgan, Glenn E. Holmes, and Clarence E. Bundy, Methods in Adult Education (Danville, 111.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1959), pp. 383-391. 17Monroe C. Neff, "Methods and Materials for Adult Learners," in Administration Of Continuing Education, ed. by Nathan C. Shaw (Washington, D.C.: National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education, 1969), pp. 323-331. 18 Boyle and Jahns, Handbook Of Adult Education, p. 69. 19Arthur w. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach TO Behavior, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, PublTshers, 1959), pp. 383-391. 20 Neff, Administration Of Continuing Education, p. 321. ZIBoyle and Jahns, Handbook of Adult Education, p. 70. 22Morgan, Holmes and Bundy, Methods in Adult Education, p. 159. 23State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 2. 24 25Earl C.Kelley and Marie 1. Rasey, Education and the Nature of Man (New York: Harper and Row, 1952), p. 72. DeCecco, The Psychology of Learning and Instruction, p. 59. 34 26Harry L. Miller, Teaching and Learning in Adult Education (New York: The Macmillan CO., 1964), p. 42. 27Edward L. Thorndike and Arthur 1. Gates, Elementary Principles of Education (New York: The Macmillan CO., 1929), p. 87. 28State Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 2. 29Ronald C. 0011, Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making and Process, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), p. 50. 30Jerome S. Bruner, The Process Of Education (New York: Random House, Inc., 1960), p. 51. 31 Miller, Teaching and Learning in Adult Education, p. 126. 32Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivations," in 199 Self in Growth, Teaching, and Learning, ed. by Don E. Hamachek (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 257. 33 Ibid., p. 257. 34Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming(Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962), p. 99. 35State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 4. 36Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, p. 13. 37Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers: A Perceptual View Of Teacher Preparation—(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. 77. 38State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 4. 39 0011, Curriculum Improvement, p. 52. 40Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior, p. 111. 4IState Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 5. 42Irving Lorge, Howard Y. McCluskey, and Gale E. Jensen, Psychology Of Adults (Chicago: Adult Education Association Of the U.S.A., 1963), p. 8. 35 43Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior, p. 88. 44Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, p. 183. 45Ibid., p. 199. 46DeCecco, The Psychology of Learning and Instruction, pp. 61-67. 47Ioid., p. 58. 48State Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 6. 49 DeCecco, The Psychology Of Learning and Instruction, p. 339. 500011, Curriculum Improvement, p. 105. 5IState Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Learning Principles, p. 9. 52 DeCecco, The Psychology Of Learning and Instruction, p. 318. 53Ioid.. pp. 292-295. 54Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communications Of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach, 2nd ed. (New York: Free Press, 1971), pp. 135-157. 58Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior, p. 381. 59Rogers, Communications Of Innovations, p. 155. 60Ibid., p. 155. 6IIhid., p. 100. 62 H 0' id., . 252. 'U 63Ibid., p. 255. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study was designed to examine and describe the Outdoor Education Project's workshops for continuing professional education for better instruction in the leisure skill Of archery during the developmental period Of 1960 through February of 1973 inclusive. It has had three components: the development of this continuing educa- tion program, the principles of learning involved and the character- istics of the innovative method of instruction. Chapter II presented a review Of literature especially relevant to these major components. This chapter describes how the questions in each of these areas have been examined. Sources Of Data The data used in this study came from several sources and they can be classified in two divisions: personal testimony and written records. The personal testimony has been obtained from participants in the archery workshops and selected leaders in the field of educa- tion and recreation who have attended workshops and were certified by the American Archery Council (AAC) between 1969 and February 1973. They have supplied assessments Of the Project's method Of instruction 36 37 and evidence Of the inclusion or non-inclusion of the method within their programs. The written records have been drawn from the Office files Of the Outdoor Education Project at Michigan State University. They have consisted principally Of advisory committee agendas and meeting reports, progress reports to the cooperating archery industry organiza- tions, correspondence with other agencies and individuals not directly connected with the Outdoor Education Project, articles submitted to periodicals, pilot program reports, correspondence from participants in the workshops to the Outdoor Education Project, the instructional manual, workshOp agendas and correspondence from key persons and groups who were involved in the archery segment Of the Outdoor Education Project. Procedures for Data Collection Data were collected from the workshop participants and leaders in the field through a mailed questionnaire and telephone interviews. Data were collected from written records by a thorough examina- tion of the following documents, correspondence, instructional materials, reports and other publications: 1. Planning proposal to Shakespeare Company 2. Program submitted to Advisory Committee (Fitness U.S.A.—— Operation Archery) 3. Yearly progress reports of the Outdoor Education Project 4. Proceedings of the Archery Advisory Committee 5. Six-year progress report by the Outdoor Education Project on the archery segment 38 6. Planning prOposal to the American Archery Council 7. Correspondence from Advisory Committee members 8. Project correspondence to "Pilot Programs" 9. Archery materials distributed to workshOp participants 10. Planning meetings of committees ll. Archery manual developed by the Outdoor Education Project 12. Correspondence from workshop participants 13. Correspondence from workshop instructors 14. Survey reports 15. Workshop evaluations 16. Research on "Reliability and Prediction Of Archery Achievement" 17. Published books and periodicals. The questionnaire was sent to all participants who had attended archery workshops sponsored by the Outdoor Education Project and certified as AAC Instructor from 1969 to February Of 1973. It was designed to gather information from the participants about their attitudes toward the archery workshops and the method Of instruction, knowledge they had acquired, and about their application of that knowledge in their own programs. The questionnaire was developed with the aid Of the Director of the Outdoor Education Project and a research Specialist. (A copy can be found in Appendix A.) A covering letter accompanied each questionnaire asking for the participant's cooperation in filling out the questionnaire (see Appendix B). Responses to the questions provided data for answering the research questions on characteristics Of the innovative method Of instruction 39 and the effect on the participant's behavior as a result of the workshop experience. Questions one through four requested information about the archery experiences and professional status Of the partici- pants. Question five elicited information concerning further archery involvement. Questions six through eight requested reports by the respondent Of behavioral changes they attributed to the workshops. Questions nine and ten requested evaluation and recommendations for change in the method of instruction. Question eleven inquired about types Of equipment used by respondents in their archery programs. The use of the questionnaire in making a survey was assumed to be the most logical method Of retrieving the needed data from a relatively large population. Survey research is probably best adapted to Obtaining personal and social facts, beliefs, and attitudes.1 Telephone interviews were conducted with selected personnel who were acquainted with the project and knowledgeable about its purposes and outcomes. The interviews were conducted to balance a recognized weakness in surveys (viz., the subjectivity of the respondent). Those selected for the telephone interviews were chosen because Of their personal knowledge of the efforts Of the Outdoor Education Project in archery instruction, their professional positions, their knowledge of current status and any changes in archery programs, and their competence to judge relationships between training programs and changes desired. Consequently, this step was taken in an effort to cross-validate the data received from the questionnaires. Eight questions were asked in the telephone 40 interview (see Appendix C). Questions one and two established the individual's professional position and the setting in which they had Observed the Project's method of archery instruction. Questions three through eight were the same questions as six through eleven on the mailed questionnaire. A review of the Outdoor Education Project's files on the archery segment Of the Outdoor Education Project was made to study the rationale of the program, to trace its development in a chronological sequence, to identify the learning principles adopted, and to reveal the process Of program planning and development. The various forms Of data were then analyzed in an attempt to answer the questions posed in Chapter I. Procedures for Analysis Of Data The data were analyzed and reported as they related to the questions. They provided the basis upon which the chronology and findings are presented in Chapters IV and V. Every attempt was made to discover the facts, goals and evaluations Of the archery segment Of the Project's development and its impact on the participants. Data analyses were accomplished by using the questions (in Chapter I) as a guide during the systematic investigation Of the Project files. The questions were focused upon separately, not as a group. The data were examined with attention to their chronological order in the time period under study. This was done to ascertain possible differences in the appearance Of evidence of the various questions over the complete time span from 1960 tO February 1973. 41 Chapter IV presents findings from analysis of data in the Project files. It is in the form of a brief history of the Outdoor Education Project and its archery segment, the development of archery workshops, the methods and materials developed in conjunction with the workshops, research conducted on the archery segment and the significant elements of the method of instruction. A copy Of the Manual appears in Appendix G. Equal weight was put upon unofficial and Official written materials. The respondents were divided into two groups: (1) those who had prior archery instruction, (2) those who did not have prior archery instruction, in order to see if there was reluctance on the part Of those individuals who had prior archery instruction to accept the new method Of instruction. The groups' responses are presented in tabular form in Chapter V. In an attempt to determine the effect Of time between the participants' attendance at a Project workshop and answering the questionnaire, the responses were also compared with elapsed time. These results are presented in Chapter V also in tabular form. The results Of the telephone countercheck are presented as an agreement-disagreement dichotomy relative to the participants' answers to relevant questions on the questionnaire. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER III 1Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational and Psychological Inquiry (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964), p. 408. 42 CHAPTER IV HISTORY AND METHOD OF ARCHERY INSTRUCTION A brief history of the Outdoor Education Project of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation and a detailed presentation Of the archery segment of that project from 1960 to 1973, is provided in four portions: the development of archery workshops, the methods and materials developed in conjunction with the workshops, the research conducted on the archery segment of the Outdoor Education Project, and the significant elements Of the method Of instruction and workshop agenda develOped by the Project (see Appendices E and G respectively). Brief History Of the Outdoor Education Project The Outdoor Education Project Of the AAHPER. This Project, national in scope, represents one Of the most extensive efforts in outdoor education. Prompted by the need for better leadership in teaching skills, attitudes, and appreciations for a better use and understanding Of the outdoors for modern living, the AAHPER initiated the Outdoor Education Project in 1955. Following the effective pattern Of COOpera- tive programs by business-industry-education, some Of the trade associations and industries concerned with the manufacture Of outing and outdoor sports equipment made grants Of funds available to carry forward the venture. The contributing organizations that have been involved in the Project include the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manu- facturers' Institute, the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association, and the Daisy’ Manufacturing Company. A doctoral fellowship was made available in 1956-57 by the Outdoor Boating Club Of America for a study Of boating instruction 43 44 in a selected list Of schools and colleges in the United States. In 1959, through a grant to Fitness U.S.A. Of the AAHPER by the Shakespeare Company, Operation Archery was established and included in the Outdoor Education Project.I The National Shooting Sports Foundation became a sponsor Of the Ourdoor Education Project in 1964, and in 1966 the American Archery Council, after a six year COOperative association with the Shakespeare Company, assumed the sponsorship Of the archery segment of the Outdoor Education Project. The increasing popularity of archery as an outdoor recreational activity prompted the AAHPER to initiate a special effort to improve the quality of instruction and broaden the sc0pe of archery in schools, colleges, recreation departments, and camping agencies. Originally known as Operation Archery, the program became a segment Of the Outdoor Education Project of the AAHPER and is a cooperative venture with the archery industry as repre— sented by the American Archery Council. Through selected pilot centers, research was conducted on methods of instruction and equipment. Archery instructors workshops are held in several sections Of the country, and instruc- tional materials have been developed. Special emphases in the Project have been given impetus from time to time through contributions from the E. C. Hough-Mary Hough Kimble Foundation and Outing Products Manufacturers. The Outdoor Education Project has been a COOperative enterprise from the beginning. In addition to the groups making grants Of funds available, many other organizations have worked with the Association, the National Rifle Association, the American Casting Association, state departments of education, conservation agencies, and schools and colleges. A National Advisory Committee, widely representative Of school and college administrators and groups interested in outdoor education, helps guide the efforts of the Project. The major activities of the Project may be categorized as follows: 45 1. Leadership Training. Workshops and clinics are conducted in nearly all the regions Of the United States for school, college, and agency leaders interested in developing outdoor education activities in their own institutions and organizations. The workshOps are planned by state and regional committees working cooperatively with the Project staff. State agencies (such as departments of education and conservation), professional organizations, and interested individuals have joined in the planning and execution Of the work- ships. The three-day sessions feature discussions, clinics, and demonstrations covering the broad areas of outdoor education, with special emphasis on the leading outdoor pursuits. 2. Interpretation and Progpam Development. Through conferences, visitations, and materials, the nature and scope Of outdoor education is [sic] interpreted to school and college administrators and teachers, and to community and youth agencies. Assistance is given in the initiation and development Of outdoor education programs. 3. Instructional Materials. Available materials in outdoor education are distributed by the AAHPER and many resource agencies.3 The Project has since its inception, been under the guidance of Julian W. Smith, Project Director, who has maintained a joint staff appointment with the AAHPER and in the College Of Education at Michigan State University. Archery Spgment of the Outdoor Education Project Formation Of an Advisony Committee The initial meeting of the Advisory Committee for the archery segment of the Outdoor Education Project called "Operation Archery" was held at Michigan State University-Oakland, Rochester, Michigan on January 15-16, 1960. The committee was to develop guidelines for the course of action of the archery segment Of the Outdoor Education Project. 46 This committee was established as the result Of a proposal to the Shakespeare Company in 1959. The proposal was based on a five point program: (1) creation Of an advisory and consultation committee, (2) establishing pilot programs, (3) holding nation-wide archery clinics in outdoor education workshops, (4) establish instructor workshops, and (5) record and evaluate pilot programs.4 The original committee was made up Of ten individuals: two from colleges, one from a high school, an elementary supervisor, a representative from the National Rifle Association, two representatives from the Shakespeare Company, a college president, an archery school camp director, and the Outdoor Education Project Director. The committee established as the goals of the archery segment the following: Purposes and Objectives Of Operation Archeny 1. Improve the quality of archery instruction in schools and colleges by: a. Demonstrating good instructional methods through pilot programs. b. In-service training of teachers through workshops and clinics. c. Research findings on instructional methods. d. Distribution of instructional materials and equipment specifications. 2. Improve the preparation of teachers and leaders for archery instruction through: a. Workshops for instructors in pilot programs. b. Clinics5 in Outdoor Education Project workshops. 47 c. Clinics at State and National HPER conventions. d. Encourage local clinics and workshops sponsored by schools, colleges, recreation departments, and other agencies. 3. Broaden participation in archery activities by: . a. Encouraging schools and colleges to extend archery programs through publicity, conferences, and materials. 4. Promote safety in archery through: a. Examples from pilot programs. b. Preparing and distributing materials. c. The National Rifle Association and archery organizations. 5. Study archery needs and recommend specifications for instruc- tional equipment and facilities for college and school use: a. Committees to develop specifications and prepare materials. 6. Develop needed instructional materials: a. Prepare packets for pilot centers. b. Assemble AAHPER packets. c. Prepare instructional manual for teachers, to include equipment specifications. d. Urge archery associations to develop additional instructional aids.5 Developinngducational Experiences The selection of sites for the pilot programs was the responsi— bility Of the advisory committee and the Project director based on: the availability of good instruction, facilities, an interest in becoming a pilot center and agreement to the plans, influential status in the area and approval Of the candidate institution's administration. 48 The pilot programs were to be provided consultant services, supplemental archery equipment, inservice training activities for the staff, and the Opportunity to compare results with other schools and colleges. By February Of 1960 eight schools had confirmed their intent to serve as pilot centers. In a progress report dated August 1, 1960 a total Of twenty schools representing twelve states, recreation departments, elementary and high schools, and colleges and universities were designated as pilot program centers.7 The first workshop for instructors held in Roxbury, Vermont at the Tela-Wooket Archery Camp, June 20-23, 1960 had a total Of 38 participants and staff instructors in attendance. Fifteen Of the pilot schools were represented at the workshop by 33 participants. In a fall meeting the advisory committee made plans for the 1961 archery workshops, designating dates to hold the three day work- shops. Vermont, Michigan, and Indiana were the sites assigned with a minimum number Of 26 participants to be registered at each. Instructors involved in the pilot programs were to be given first preference and a recommended staff-participant ratio was to be approximately one to five.8 At the same meeting a subcommittee was assigned to develop a suggested program for the workshop. Workshop Communications TO encourage pilot program instructors who taught or intended to teach archery to attend the 1961 archery workshops the cost for 49 their food, lodging, and instruction was to be assumed by Operation Archery.9 Publicity on the workshops was tO be supplied "through newsletters, journals, and special communications to schools, colleges, and agencies."10 A recommendation was submitted to the committee at the March, 1961 meeting to send a prepared release to the following archery magazines: Archery (National Field Archery Association), TAM, IDE. Archer's Magazine (National Archery Association), Bowhunting, and the National Bowhunter. These publications have cooperated in this effort over the years. The possibility of establishing regional archery workshops was discussed with encouragement to colleges and universities to conduct archery clinics in their own areas. The expansion Of the number and sites of the 1962 archery work- shops was considered at the fall meeting of the advisory committee. Several suggestions were made relative to the workshop program: evening discussion on organization and initiating archery instruction, follow-up letter sent to the participant's administrator, consider publicity as early as possible on up-coming workshops, prospective workshop directors should be invited tO attend a prior workshop, dates prior to the opening of school be considered for conducting archery workshops, the expansion of participants to include not only pilot center instructors not previously in attendance but prospective workshop and clinic directors, other school and college instructors, recreation, camp, and agency personnel, and also the following financial assistance policy: 50 . . The following expenses should be assumed by Operation Archery: (a) food and lodging expenses for pilot center instructor; (b) food and lodging and travel expenses for consultants and staff; (c) food, lodging, and partial travel expenses for prospective workshop directors. Other participants should assume the nominal cost Of food and lodging.II Certification Of archery instructors was also a point con- sidered during the October meeting. It was suggested that the AAHPER was the logical organization to administer the certification Of archery instructors in cooperation with other organizations and archery associations. Only two of the three proposed 1961 workshops were held, the California workshop was cancelled. In addition three archery clinics were conducted. Four archery workshops and nine archery clinics were held in 1962. In a report to the Shakespeare Company on the activities of Operation Archery, it was suggested "that the entire archery industry eventually participate in the archery project."12 Program Expgnsion and Cooperation with New Organizations In 1963 there was a considerable increase in activity with 19 archery clinics and five archery workshops being conducted. The following year 13 clinics and eight archery workshops were held. At this stage Of development the archery segment was con- sidered an integral part Of the Outdoor Education Project as evidenced by this statement: 51 Originally the archery program was known as Operation Archery, but more recently archery has been regarded as one of the essential phases of the Outdoor Education Project. It was suggested that in the publicity both terms be used wherever necessary for clarification. However, it was felt that eventually archery should be considered an integral part Of the Outdoor Education Project.13 During the first six years Of the archery segment Of the Outdoor Education Project the Shakespeare Company had been a supportive member of the cooperative effort to enhance archery in the schools and colleges Of the nation. By this time archery equipment, materials and leadership had been supplied through the Outdoor Education Project for archery instruction activities through clinics at outdoor education workshops and professional conferences and archery workshops. By 1965 archery as an outdoor skill had reached well over nine thousand educators through these various meetings.14 Two important cooperative ventures began in 1966. In June the Outdoor Education Project entered into cooperation with the American Archery Council.15 In the same year a project called the Lifetime Sports Education Project (LSEP), asked the Outdoor Education Project to provide instructors, equipment and their archery instruc- tional workshop programs for the various LSEP programs around the country. This cooperative relationship continued until the Lifetime Education Project was terminated in 1971. The Project's efforts in developing a cadre Of archery instructors willing to conduct archery workshops clearly proved effective. It should be noted that honorariums have never been paid 52 the archery instructors, only their travel, food and lodging costs. In 1966 the Project conducted ten archery workshops along with ten archery clinics. In 1967 a total of 31 workshops and clinics were conducted by 15 different instructors. In the same year, 1967, a further step was taken to provide advanced instruction for archery leaders who would subsequently conduct teacher training archery work- shops and clinics for the Project. This effort was a two day workshop attended by 25 invited participants from 14 states. Western Michigan University was the host Of the new form Of workshop.16 To encourage further development of advanced archery in the schools and colleges the Outdoor Education Project initiated two "postal tournaments.” They were designed to encourage beginners to compete in tournaments. One tournament, designed for indoor shooting, consisted of shooting 60 arrows from 20 years at a 20 inch target for each team member. Only team entries were allowed and four divisions with four categories within each division: Male Division (four members per team) 1. grade six and below 2. grades seven, eight and nine 3. grades ten, eleven and twelve 4. beyond high school Female Division (same categories as above) Coed Division (two males and two females with the same categories as above.) 53 The other tournament, designed for outdoor shooting, con- sisted of 30 arrows each from 40 yards,30 'yards and 20 yards for the category beyond high school. In all other categories each team member shot 24 arrows from 30 yards, 25 yards and 20 yards respectively, All divisions shoot at a 36 inch target with team, category and division composition the same in both tournaments. Teams sent in their scores to the Project, thus the postal tournament, in comparison to a physical tournament. During 1968 another 27 archery clinics and workshops were held with the Project assisting in an additional ten follow-up clinics conducted by participants who attended Project workshops. The first advanced archery workshop with American Archery Council certification was held in January, 1969 with 19 instructors being certified as (AAC) Advanced Instructors. The Project conducted an additional 28 clinics and workshops during the year. A temporary reduction in funding by the American Archery Council resulted in fewer than normal (18) archery clinics and work- 17 shops being conducted in 1970. A year later the AAC was able to provide more funds, making it possible to conduct 29 archery clinics and workshops in 1971.18 The second advanced archery workshop was held in January Of 1972 with 30 participants from nine states receiving the AAC Advanced Instructors rating. Seventeen workshops and clinics were held during the remainder Of 1972. Another advanced archery workshop was held in February Of 1973 in Arkansas with a total Of 25 participants receiving the AAC Advanced Instructors rating. 54 The Project's efforts in Archery were an attempt to provide better archery instruction and instructors. To assist in determining the goals Of the Project's archery segment an Advisory Committee was established. Those selected had broad archery interests, representing varied professions and organizations. A number of pilot programs were established to provide a basis for the educational experiences to be included in the workshop program. Through the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, the Project and archery periodicals' mass communication channels were established. An expansion Of the Project's archery segment saw an increased number of workshop Offering, certification by the American Archery Council and expanded support as represented by the cooperative efforts Of the AAC. The next section on workshop methods and materials provides some of the sources and intention Of experiences and techniques used by the archery segment. Workshop Methods and Materials During the course Of the Advisory Committee's existence a number of subcommittees were appointed. Several Of them were to develop instructional methods and materials for the archery workshops. The subcommittees were the working segments Of the advisory committee as it moved to accomplish the goals as established in the January 15-16, 1960 meeting. 55 This section will trace the contributions of the subcommittees, organizations, and individuals in the development Of archery instruc- tion as it relates to methods and materials Of instruction Of the Project's archery workshop. Five subcommittees were authorized at the second advisory committee meeting held in 1960. They included research, workshop programs, safety, instructional charts, and tournament rounds. The Use Of Light Draw Weignt Bows At the first advisory committee meeting the bows recommended for the pilot programs were listed in poundage from 15-25 pounds in draw weight. Those recommendations have carried through to the thinking still presented in instruction. The use Of light weight bows is still recommended for learning: 1. Bows a. Elementary 15-20 lb. bows b. Secondary 20-25 lb. bows c. College 20—25 lb. bows19 The bows were not only light in draw weight but were made of fiber glass. The process in producing them and the material provided a very inexpensive bow for use in the archery workshop. It has con- tinually been used and promoted as a good bow for beginning archers and beginning archery programs. This emphasis on inexpensive equipment permits the inclusion Of archery programs at a nominal cost to schools and recreation programs (see Appendix G, pp. 14-15). There has not been universal 56 acceptance of this logic, however, as indicated by the skepticism expressed by Robert F. Oxnam, President of Pratt Institute and an original member of the advisory committee, as he indicated his thoughts in a letter to the Project Director. I do hope at some point in the experiment we will be able to run a test group using what some Of us would consider ideal equipment rather than relying on inexpensive equipment alone. There is a question in my mind that what may appear initially to be a more expensive investment may actually prove to be much less expensive in the long run.20 The Introduction Of Various Ideas and Techniques Used in the Workshops Archery games were a part Of the archery workshops, starting with the initial one in Tela-Wooket. They include: clout, wand, roving, and bird and rabbits (see Appendix G, pp. 36-37). The Modified Flint Round was used with the first pilot program starting in 1960. It still remains a part Of the instructional procedure, its only change was the scoring and number Of arrows shot. The Project Director in comments on the testing program con- ducted at the pilot program centers, mentioned the pre-draw gap aid tO instinctive or bare-bow shooting. He said the "system has not yet been published but would appear in print next year.”21 This statement carries no date but it was developed for the 1960-61 academic year. In the same report a system Of aiming known as point Of aim was mentioned, this type Of aiming was later discarded. Thus, both instinctive (bare-bow) and free style (sight method) aiming were used from the beginning. 57 In the Outdoor Education Project's 1960 Progress Report it was stated that a need existed for "an instructor's manual on various phases Of archery."22 Lura Wilson, one of the original members of the Advisory Committee, recommended two equipment items in the instructional program. She suggested that a shooting tab be used because of the ease with which several people can use the same protective device for the shoot- ing hand and the use Of ground quivers rather than side or hip quivers. The tab is still recommended for instructional programs, while the ground quiver was tried but the hip quiver was most Often used in the archery workshops (see Appendix G, p. 14).23 Myrtle Miller, in developing materials for the archery work- shops, suggested that her "Practical Aids and Safety" be reproduced and included in the materials provided by the Project.24 This was done and it was called "Practical Aids for Archery Instructors." It proved to be a valuable start in the development of materials and also influenced some Of the methods Of instruction. It employed a combination of traditional and new ideas. The guide stressed the use Of inexpensive light draw-weight bows for all ages and inexpensive arrows for the beginner. Mention was made of indoor shooting with the aid of a backdrop (felt, wool, or nylon netting). Safety was continually stressed and the importance Of the shooting tab or glove and the arm guard was highlighted. Seven steps Of shooting were specified: (1) stance, (2) hocking the arrow, (3) the draw, (4) the anchor, (5) aiming or holding, (6) the loose or release, and (7) follow through and afterhold. Also 58 included were ”interest stimulating suggestions" for intramurals, clubs, organizational hints, and additional resources. Both sight and instinctive shooting instructions were given, together with field archery and bowhunting tips including safety rules for both. A list Of twelve safety rules were listed for the beginner. All but one Of them is still stressed. The use Of a sight is stressed along with the now extinct "point-of—aim."25 In addition to the Miller brochure three additional outlines to aid instruction were furnished pilot program instructors and participants Of the 1960-61 archery workshops. The first, for the pilot programs, was called "Starting Procedure for Pilot Programs"; the second was entitled ”Teaching Progression for Beginners"; and the third was "Program Outline Suggestions for Class Teaching." All three outlines mention the use Of mimetics, a concept which has been retained in some form in the present instructional methods. Most of the information contained within the outlines was duplicated from the "Practical Aids for Archery Instructors" in a lesson plan arrangement. The use Of the coach-pupil method was also suggested for use on the shooting line. The information provided the archery instructor within these outlines lacked depth and, unfortunately, the instructor had to rely heavily on knowledge not included therein. In their October 1961 meeting the advisory committee recommended the inclusion Of archery crafts and repair whenever possible, the issuing of a certificate of attendance, and the development Of a resource pool Of leaders to eventually help in the conduct Of archery 59 clinics and workshops. They also stressed the need to include archery clinics in other Outdoor Education Project workshops, thus giving exposure and creating an interest in archery. Items that were sug- gested for inclusion in the archery instructor workshops included: backstops, light portable targets, and glass arrows. Practice teaching and archery crafts were included in the 1962 archery workshop held in Michigan. Workshop participants were also given certificates Of attendance at all of the 1962 archery workshops.26 The advisory committee was asked in 1963 to suggest needed changes in the "Safety Of Archery" publication by the National Safety Council. They also recommended that several additions be included in the materials supplied the archery workshop participants: the "NRA Hunter Safety Handbook," "ABC's of Archery," an annotated archery bibliography, DGWS Archernyuide, and Beginning Archery. It was reported that posters and charts on archery instruction were still nonexistent. A new workshop format was tried in 1964. Held only two days, it was tabbed a "drive-in" type workshop. The Project report for the year noted that this "intensive archery instruction seemed to be highly successful and may serve as an example for future similar workshops during the school year.”27 Several such workshops were held over a two year periOd and then dropped from the workshop format. In the 1964 advisory committee meeting the inclusion Of archery crafts was questioned and more review during workshops was suggested for evening sessions as the workshop progressed.28 60 The first draft Of "The Manual for Archery Instructors Workshop" was finished in 1964 to "assist those who plan to conduct workshops for archery instructors."29 Included in the suggestions were three items now considered a part of the method Of instruction: (1) the bows should be strung for the student, learning how to string them is to be covered later, (2) draw the string back three inches, without an arrow and release the string, (3) instinctive aiming should be compared to throwing a ba11--lOOk at where you want the arrow to 90.30 Under a section entitled "Instructional Tips," a number Of implications for learning principles were included as follows: . the student should be given a bow and arrow to shoot as soon as possible; use a positive approach, minimize the use of ”don't”; praise, tell the student how to do it correctly and not what they're [sic] doing wrong; no shooting demonstrations by instructor, the expert can only lose status; integrate safety and safety rules as they relate to the ongoing activity; don't attempt to analyze the shooting fundamentals of the archer by Observing the release of one arrow; don't over instruct; include alternate practice activities in the form Of archery games.3 TO expand and increase the understanding Of instinctive shooting and the teaching Of it a visual chart and descriptive out- line were developed. This system, called the "pre-draw gap system, was developed by Dick Wilson. It is a method by which instinctive shooting is aided and to . . greatly speed the attaining Of proficiency in bare bow shooting, at distances up to about 35 yards, for it demands that the archer become fully aware Of bow arm elevation. The gap system is not to be regarded as an end in itself, but as a tOOl which can help the archer quickly arrive at a point where he can shoot automatically without having to learn on any gap system or artificial device.32 61 In a letter tO Julian W. Smith, Dick Wilson established the ten steps of shooting. The first five steps were designated as "static" and the second five steps were designated as "dynamic.” These steps were listed as: (l) stance, (2) nock arrow, (3) set hook, (4) bow hand, (5) straight arm, (6) raise unit, (7) draw-anchor, (8) aim- 33 hold, (9) aim-release, and (10) aim-follow through. An archery manual Group Archgpy Instruction for Beginners: A Planning Guide was prepared in 1967 by a committee appointed by the director of the Outdoor Education Project and published by the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. This was the fruition Of the seven years Of workshops, ideas, suggestions, teaching methods, and a bibliography on archery finally put into a single volume. It provided the basic format for a later edition published by the AAHPER in 1972. Copies Of the manual were distributed to all workshop and clinic participants and to selected archery instructors and specialists. It was used as a teaching guide in all the workshops. All receiving it have been invited to send suggestions for improvements when the next edition is prepared. Several sessions have been devoted to a study of the manual and a file is Eiing kept on all suggestions for revisions and additions. The initial publication and its sequel were, in part, due to the efforts Of Dick Wilson. His leadership in archery resulted in his election to the presidency Of the American Archery Council and his span of Office ran from its inception in 1963 to 1971. The first college credit was awarded for an archery workshop conducted in cooperation with the Outdoor Education Project and held at Stanford University June 26-30, 1967. This workshop was joined by 62 one held at State University College at Cortland, New York June 28- July 12, one at Northern Arizona University August 6-11, and One at Texas Woman's University August 7-11. Since 1967 several archery workshops have been held annually through the cooperative efforts Of the credit granting institutions and the Outdoor Education Project. Excerpts from two letters indicate the acceptance Of the OEP method Of archery instruction. The first is from an enthusiastic instructor in college level recreation classes: I enjoyed our training session last fall. I have taught this new approach to two classes so far. Both classes enjoyed the activity more, and improved more than my previous classes.35 The second speaks of the application of the method to special training for handicapped veterans: Bill Cushman and I have been teaching archery with the OEP method to blind veterans from Viet Nam. What an experience! What's more the method works for them136 To help facilitate the growing demands on the archery segment Of the Outdoor Education Project a part-time staff member was added in 1968. The American Archery Council produced the film "The World of Archery" in 1967. The film depicted the instructional archery program that was developed through the cooperative efforts of the archery industry and the Outdoor Education Project. A second film "Outdoor Education" was produced in 1969. It emphasizes archery instruction as a part Of outdoor education programs in schools. In the same year a series Of four instructional loop films were produced by a commercial firm. A consultant was requested 63 from the Project's cadre of archery leaders. This cooperative effort was initiated and sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association Film Service. The film loops portrayed the method of archery instruction as developed through the efforts of the Outdoor Education Project. Starting with the initial advanced archery instructors' work- shop the ten step method of archery instruction was portrayed on a large chart. The chart has been used, since then, at all Project sponsored archery workshops. After the completion of the 1970 Advanced Archery Workshop a committee was established by the Project Director to revise and add to the existing archery instructors manual. The additional portion of the manual was to include individual instruction and in-depth analysis of archery instruction which was the format of the advanced workshops. (See Appendix G, pp. 38-59.) A new and important development was reported by the Outdoor Education Project in 1971. Teacher training institutions are now adopting the Outdoor Educations Project's archery manual as their course guide and those teachers possessing the AAC Advanced Instructor's certification are beginning to certify their students as they complete the course. This is an important step in the Project's efforts to update the training of archery teachers. This process as it unfolds will be similar to the certifica- tion of Red Cross Instructors that insures the standardiza- tion of teaching methods, techniques and knowledge.37 The revised instructional manual was published in 1972 under the title Archery: A Planning Guide for Group and Individual Instruction. 64 During the same year the American Archery Council, in coopera- tion with Easton Aluminum Company, approved the production of a film about the development of archers. This action led to the filming of archery in the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. The film portrayed instruction at schools, colleges, recreation, and club programs. The film was released in 1973 and was entitled "A Return to the Olympics." The archery manual has been favorably accepted by archery instructors throughout the country as illustrated in a 1972 letter: I recently completed an archery unit at Juanita High School, Kirkland, Washington. I enjoyed teaching all the "new" things which I learned at Cispus in September. The archery manual used at the workshop--prepared by your AAHPER Committee--is the best teaching guide I've used. It is basic and complete--just the type of book needed.38 Archery World magazine initiated the development of a series of archery posters in 1972. These were developed in consultation with another of the Project's archery leaders. It provides a series of 12 instructional posters that add to the instructional aids that can be used in archery programs. The methods and materials used in the Project's archery work- shops had many contributors. This section revealed many of the sources and reasons for the inclusion of basic techniques, experiences, materials and archery equipment. As an outgrowth of the Project's efforts in archery many instructional aids for archery were developed: an instructional manual, loop films, posters and a simple sequential method of instruction. The learning experiences, the granting of college credit to select workshops, the advanced archery workshops, and the 65 certification Of workshop participants by the American Archery Council were the culmination of the Project's involvement in the instruction of archery. The following section shows the Project's efforts in securing data on the archery program. Research Two major efforts have been made to evaluate archery instruc- tion by the Outdoor Education Project. In 1960 the Advisory Com- mittee, as established by the Project, requested that two individuals on the committee prepare an outline of research procedures for gathering data from the pilot program centers. As established and distributed by the Project for the pilot centers, the statement of purpose emphasized the gathering of data for evaluation of teaching and equipment used in archery programs: . to determine the best teaching methods and rounds to train archery teachers and improve teaching, and to compile and/or make available the best information and literature for the success of the teaching program. New novelty rounds, hunting techniques, safety measures, etc., will be studied and evaluated.39 The gathering of data started early in 1960 and concluded in 1963, covering a three year period. In June Of 1963 Arnold Haugen submitted his report on the findings of that research as data were submitted from the pilot centers. The report dealt only with equipment as indicated by a letter to Julian W. Smith. Dr. Haugen 40 stated that he had not analyzed any Of the scores. The report applied to equipment used by beginning male and female archers. 66 It was found that 90% of the women used bows with draw weights between 18 and 25 pounds. Fifty percent of the men used bows of 24 to 25 pound draw weight, with 20% using bows of 20 to 21 pounds and 10% of 30 to 31 pounds. Thus, women used bows that averaged approximately four pounds less. Solid fiber glass bows were used by 78% of the men and 76% of the women. Haugen reported that women archers were still using more Obsolete equipment than men, using more wood bows, fewer center shot bows, more solid arrow rests or none at all. Women also reported only two out of five had marked nocking points. Wooden arrows were used by both the women (90%) and men (85%), although aluminum and glass arrows are more accurate and durable (and more expensive). In related discussion on equipment several observations were made in the report: satisfaction with the fiber glass bow over the wooden bow, cushioned arrow rests and nocking points on strings should be used. and better arrow shaft materials (glass or aluminum) should be used.41 In 1965 the Outdoor Education Project sent a questionnaire to participants of the archery workshops; 119 responded. Those respond- ing represented the following institutional areas: schools-35%, colleges-30%, camps-30%, and other (clubs, recreation departments) 6%. A summary of the participants responses indicated the following: 1. Ninety-five percent felt qualified to teach after the workshop ' 2. Ninety-three percent felt they could conduct a tournament in class 67 3. Most important items learned: a. Safety procedures, ninety-eight percent felt it was stressed enough b. Teaching and class techniques, ninety percent. c. Variety of archery activities, eighty-nine percent. 4. Method of shooting and teaching a. Seventy-four percent indicated the workshop method was different than previously used b. Sixty-six percent felt the workshop method was better 5. Everyone responding indicated they would recommend the archery workshop to others 6. Equipment and facilities a. Bows, 84% used some glass, 50% used some laminated, and 50% used some wood b. Arrows, 90% were using wood with an indication of more glass arrows being used. c. More indoor instruction taking place d. A trend was under way to provide sufficient equipment for each student in the class42 A study was conducted during the 1966-67 school year at Indiana University to estimate the reliability of the modified Chicago Round and the Modified Flint Round. Both of these were developed for the archery workshops and subsequent archery programs in the school and colleges. The reported conclusions were: 1. The Modified Chicago Round and Modified Flint Round are reliable measure for evaluating archery achievement of college men in a basic physical education instructional course. 68 2. The relationship between the Modified Chicago Round and the Modified Flint Round is sufficiently low to warrant using both measures. 3. The defined criterion of total archery ability may be predicted with a high degree of confidence.43 The Modified Chicago and Flint Rounds were developed for the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops. The Modified Chicago Round is shot from a distance of 20 yeard at a 36 inch target. The Modified Flint Round is shot at six different distances, from 20 feet to 20 yards and at targets of 12 and 18 inches. The study showed that the two rounds measured different abilities. The Modified Chicago Round evaluates the consistency of the archer while the Modified Flint Round evaluates the archer's ability to adjust to varied distances and target sizes. The study was conducted to estimate the reliability of the Modified Chicago Round and the Modified Flint Round, to investigate the relationship between the two rounds, and to develop a regression equation that would predict archery ability of college men.44 During the closing session Of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshops written and/or oral evaluations were made by the participants at the request of the workshop staff. Such information contributed to the development of the archery workshops and the method of archery instruction. Research on the equipment used by the Project's pilot centers was conducted from 1961 to 1963. It showed a majority of the programs used light draw weight, inexpensive bows and wooden arrows. In 1965 a questionnaire sent to workshop participants revealed a high percentage of them were satisfied with the workshop and the method of 69 instruction. An independent study, conducted on the archery rounds used in the workshops, revealed they were reliable for use in archery programs. Each archery workshop provided the participant with an opportunity to evaluate the workshop either orally or in written form. A presentation of the important ingredients of the Project's method of instruction follows in the final portion of Chapter IV. The Outdoor Education Project's Method of Archery Instruction Any method of archery instruction will contain corrmon com- ponents such as body mechanics and the type and use of equipment. The key to the Outdoor Education Project's method of archery instruc- tion is the process, exemplified by its adopted slogan "Immediate participation, immediate success." Paramount to the accomplishment of these objectives is the definite sequential arrangement of instructional steps. In the group instruction approach used in the workshops and clinics, the instructor in clear and concise terms "walks" the participant through the ten steps. During the entire process simple explanations are used to help the learner attain sufficient skill for reasonable success. Following the ten step sequence and shooting a few arrows, more detailed and precise instruction follows. Accepting the challenge of early success the learner, assisted by the instructor and assistants, proceeds to refine the basic skills and to give attention to the learning problems Of the individual learner. 70 The most salient parts of the beginning instruction (see Appendix G) are drawn from the archery manual developed by the committee appointed and supervised by the Outdoor Education Project Director.45 The author presents the method of instruction as it, the learning experiences and the workshop are organized. Workshop Objectives The Project's archery workshop is conducted over a three day period. The workshop Objectives as presented at the opening session include: 1. A thorough understanding and the ability to shoot a bow using the ten step method of instruction. 2. An understanding Of equipment costs, storage and repair. 3. An understanding and ability to shoot a bow using the free style and instinctive method. 4. An awareness of and participation in target archery, field archery and archery games. 5. Illustrations and discussion concerning adaptations of local facilities for archery programs. 6. The knowledge and Opportunity to practice archery safety procedures. 7. An understanding of the roles of the various archery organizations. 8. A guide for developing an archery program and a forum for discussion on its applicability to local programs. 9. Instructional materials as aids for the understanding and teaching of archery. 71 Ten Step Method of Instruction During the three days the workshop participant is provided with direct first hand experiences in shooting a bow and with a sequential method by which to teach archery. Subsequent discussion and practice sessions allow the individual to improve upon the understanding and skill of shooting the bow and teaching others how to shoot it. Included within the learning experiences: (1) determining eye dominance, (2) immediate participation in shooting at a large target from a close distance, (3) shooting at varied distances by the two styles, (4) stringing and unstringing a bow, (5) using the student/coach-shooter procedure, (6) shooting two tournament rounds, (7) shooting a variety of archery games, (8) shoot- ing both indoors and outdoors, (9) preparing the bow and arrows for shooting, (10) viewing archery films and other instructional materials, and (11) discussions on the techniques used in presenting the skills, on the equipment used, on adapting existing facilities, on program development, on archery organizations and the participant's evaluation of the workshop. Principles Of Learning Involved with the Method Of Instruction The learning readiness of the workshop participant is con- sidered initially in the orientation session. At that time each participant is asked to follow the step by step learning process as presented at the workshop. This appeal is primarily to reduce the practice of skills learned prior to the workshop. All participants originally 90 through the basic shooting procedure. The next step 72 in the instruction is to have one participant coach a selected partner. By watching the archer, as he shoots, the coach selects a portion of the shooting fundamentalsaud decides if it was correctly performed or if corrections are needed. By this process individual readiness is taken into account, allowing the more accomplished to move onto areas more appropriate to their skill level. It also provides an Opportunity for the coach to compare individual per- formance with the prescribed technique. The individual, after having shot a number of arrows by using both shooting techniques, is allowed to select the method he prefers. There are several supervised voluntary practice sessions that an individual can attend to further his level of competence. The learning readiness or entering behavior of the individual, considered at the workshop, requires the accommodation of individual differences. This is accomplished in several ways already described in the preceeding paragraph: (1) student/coach shooter procedure, (2) selection of shooting method, and (3) by voluntary practice sessions. Additionally discussion sessions during the practice shooting attempts to reconcile individual problems, discussion sessions that review the proceedings, and a varied format in the form Of archery games provide enjoyable practice sessions. An essential incentive for motivating the workshop participant has been the certification as basic instrpctor, through the American Archery Council. Participants had requested that some completion credit or competency rating be accessible to workshop participants as early as the October, 1961 meeting of the Advisory Committee.46 73 The immediacy of shooting by the workshop participant and the success enjoyed by all individuals serves as incentive in reducing any anxieties over the thought of failure. As Harry Miller Observed togetherness in adult groups serves as a linkage to behavioral change. The positive approach to correcting errors is emphasized by the instructors. Explanation and review Of correct fundamental procedures are stressed. Telling an individual what he is doing wrong is minimized. The Opportunity for discussion and understanding the fundamentals provides the further possibility for reducing any fear or anxiety over not succeeding. Through the introduction of a variety of archery games further practice is gained while using the skill under varied conditions. Many opportunities for reinforcement or feedback are provided the participant, over the duration Of the workshop, starting with verbal commands explaining the ten step method combined with mimetics and demonstrations. Ten step charts are also visible to the archer for reference. The participant is talked through the procedure several times until the participant appears comfortable with the action of releasing the arrow. He is then allowed to perform the skill with the aid Of his coach. Through the use Of the student/ coach shooter procedure the positive techniques are brought to each individual, the eyes of each coach serves as a mirror in guiding the shooter. Shooting provides a visual Opportunity for personal assess- ment with emphasis placed on shooting form not score. Instructional loop films and other archery films are used to compare shooting techniques. During the many discussion periods the method of 74 instruction is under continual analysis by the participant and the workshop instructors. Through the active participation of those attending the work- shop the individual has an opportunity to evaluate the method of instruction as it pertains to him. The participant also is in a position to judge the method Of instruction as it relates to other participants. That judgment is based on visual Observation of the shooting performances of others and their skill progression, conversa- tion with participants on an informal basis and in the formal discus- sion sessions. The participant also has the opportunity to evaluate the workshop at the end of the three days. Another important characteristic Of an innovation is the degree to which it is visible to the adopter. Through the active participation in the skill Of shooting and the explanation and discussion concerning the method permits the individual to Observe the method of instruction and its effectiveness. Throughout the work— shop the basis for the techniques are explained and open for dis- cussion and analysis. The workshop presented a sequential step by step method of learning how to shoot a bow while learning how to teach others to shoot a bow. The Project's method of instruction takes account of four elements essential for learning: readiness, motivation, reinforcement and direct involvement. The innovative method Of instruction provides Opportunities for the participant-leader to: evaluate the 75 method of instruction throughout the workshop, observe the method's effect on himself and others, enjoy the success and understanding of the method of instruction, assess the method's satisfaction Of personal needs and its advantages to himself and his program. Summar The purpose of this descriptive case study was to examine and describe the Outdoor Education Project's workshops, a continuing education program for developing leaders of instruction and program development in the leisure skill of archery. Specifically the data in this chapter provides information in response to these important questions: 1. What were the objectives of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshop and who established them? 2. How were the goals and objectives of the workshop presented to the participant? 3. What methods of communication were employed in promOting the archery workshops? 4. How was learning readiness of the workshop participant taken into account? 5. Were Opportunities provided to accommodate differences in the rate Of learning? 6. Were incentives provided to motivate the participant? 7. Was the participant able to Observe the object and the idea components of the method of instruction? 8. Did the participant have the opportunity to experience feedback? 9. Did the method Of instruction lend itself to evaluation by the participant? 10. How were the strengths and weaknesses of the planned workshop programs evaluated by the Project? 76 Through examination of written records in the Outdoor Education Project office and other publications answers to the above questions were derived. Findings 1. The general objectives of the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshop was established by the Advisory Committee. The general Objectives were to: improve the quality Of archery instruction in schools and colleges, improve the preparation of teachers and leaders for instruction, broaden participation in archery activities, promote safety in archery, study archery needs and recommend specifications for instructional equipment and facilities for college and school use and develop needed instructional materials. Publicity for promoting the archery workshops was developed through the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation's journal and news- letter, the Project's newsletter and special communica- tion to schools, colleges and agencies, and through the archery periodicals. Learning readiness is dealt with directly when an appeal is made to the participants, prior to active participation, that they practice the method being taught during the workshop and avoiding the practice of previously learned archery skills. The individual rate of learning is accommodated through the student/coach-shooter technique, discussion, voluntary practice sessions, individual choice of shooting style and a variety of archery rounds and games. Several incentives designed to motivate the partici- pant are provided: American Archery Council certifi- cation, the "immediate participation-immediate success" premise, the intimate atmosphere at the workshop setting, a positive approach to correcting errors using "do” not "don't," providing the participant with an instruction manual which includes the method of instruction and suggested program, the process of selecting the workshop participant and a select number of college credit workshops. 77 7. The participant, through his direct involvement in the workshop, has the opportunity to experience the method of instruction through participation and discussion and to observe and discuss with others their Opinions about the instructional method. 8. The workshop experiences provide a variety of feedback Opportunities, verbal commands, mimetics, demonstrations, practice, visual charts, movies and discussion sessions. 9. Through the direct involvement Of the participant in the act of shooting, the opportunity to discuss the method and to Observe success of himself and other participants while using the Project's method Of instruction allows each participant ample Opportunity to evaluate the method. 10. The Project assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the planned archery programs through a study of the pilot centers, a survey of workshop participants, an independent study of the Project's archery rounds and the oral or written evaluation of the workshops by the participants. Chapter V presents the data from the mailed questionnaire and the telephone interview. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER IV 1Julian W. Smith, Reynold E. Carlson, Hugh B. Masters, and George W. Donaldson, Outdoor Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 281. 2Julian W. Smith, Reynold E. Carlson, Hugh 8. Masters, and George W. Donaldson, Outdoor Education, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 155. 3 Smith, Outdoor Education (1963), pp. 281-282. 4Outdoor Education Project, "A Proposal: To Improve and Extend the Teaching of Archery in Schools and Colleges," 1959. pp. 1-2. 5The clinics are one or two days in length and are designed as introductory or refresher programs. Workshops by comparison present an archery method of instruction and organization of archery programs which includes intramural and tournament competition. 6Outdoor Education Project, "Fitness U.S.A.--Operation Archery," January 15-16, 1960. PP. 1-2. 7Outdoor Education Project, "Operation Archery: Progress Report 1959-60," August 1, 1960, Addendum 2. 8Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings Of the Advisory Committee," October 2-4, 1960, p. 2. 9Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings of the Advisory Committee," March 15-16, 1961, p. 2. 10mo. 1]Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings of the Advisory Committee," October 2-3, 1961, p. 3. 12Outdoor Education Project, "A Progress Report on Operation Archery, 1961—62,” September 1, 1962, p. 5. 13Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings of the Archery Advisory Committee," March 17-18, 1963, p. 3. 78 79 14Outdoor Education Project, "Six Years of Progress with the Archery Segment Of the Outdoor Education Project, 1959-1965," January 1, 1966, p. 3. 15The American Archery Council, which was organized in 1963, is comprised of representatives from each of the following national archery organizations: Archery Manufacturers Organization, Archery Lane Operator's Association, American Indoor Archery Association, National Archery Association of the U.S.A., National Field Archery Association of the U.S.A., Professional Archers Association, and the Professional Bowhunters Society. 16Outdoor Education Project, "A Progress Report to the American Archery Council," February 1, 1968, p. 1. 17Outdoor Education Project, "A Progress Report to the American Archery Council," Why 15, 1970, p. 4. 18Outdoor Education Project, "A Progress Report to the American Archery Council," August 31, 1971, pp. 1-2. 19Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings of Committee," January 15-16, 1960, p. 4. 20Letter from Robert F. Oxnam to Julian W. Smith, February 17, 1960. 210utdoor Education Project, ”Letter Of Instruction for Research and Testing Program," p. 1. 22Outdoor Education Project, "Progress Report 1959-60," August 1, 1960, p. 3. 23Letter from Lura Wilson, Central High School, Gran, New York, to Dick Wilson, August 31, 1960. 24Letter from Myrtle Miller, Director, Tela-Wooket Archery Camp, to Julian W. Smith, September 7, 1960. 25Myrtle K. Miller, "Practical Aids for Archery Instructors in Colleges and Universities, Schools, Camps, Clubs” (distributed by The Outdoor Education Project, 1960), pp. 2-10. 26Outdoor Education Project, "Archery Activities of the Outdoor Education Project, 1962-1963," September, 1963. 27Outdoor Education Project, "Archery Activities of the Outdoor Education Project 1963-1964," October, 1964, p. 7. 80 28Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings Of the Planning Meeting for the Archery Segment of the Outdoor Education Project," October 13, 1964, p. 2. 29Outdoor Education Project, "A Manual for Archery Instructors Workshops," 1964, p. 1. 30Ihid., p. 2. 3IIbid., p. 6. 32 Marcella D. Woods, "Pre-Draw Gap System," presented at the National Association of Physical Education for College Women, 1964, p. 1. 33Letter to Julian W. Smith from R. T. Wilson, Manager Archery Division, Shakespeare Company, January 28, 1965. 34Outdoor Education Project, "A Progress Report to the American Archery Council," February, 1968, p. 4. 35Letter from Mary Kinman, Department of Physical Education, William Jewell College, Liberty, Missouri, April 8, 1968. 36Memorandum from Judy Book, Stanford University, September 3, 1968. 37Outdoor Education Project, “A Progress Report on Archery Activities of The Outdoor Education Project," August, 1971, p. 3. 38Letter from Rose Marie Murphy, Physical Education Instructor, to Julian W. Smith, November 8, 1972. 39Outdoor Education Project, "Teaching Research Project," 1960, p. 1. 40Letter from Arnold O. Haugen, Iowa State University, June 3, 1964. 41Arnold O. Haugen, ”Operation Archery Equipment Report," June 3, 1963, pp. 1-4. 42Outdoor Education Project, "Evaluation of Archery Instructors Workshop," Fall, 1965. 43Roger M. Zabik and Andrew S. Jackson, "Reliability and Prediction of Archery Achievement," unpublished material, 1967, p. 3. 81 44Ibid., p. 1. 45American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Archery: A Planninnguide for Group and Individual Instruction (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1972). 46Outdoor Education Project, "Proceedings of the Advisory Committee," October 2-3, 1961, p. 3. CHAPTER V PERSONAL TESTIMONY Introduction In an effort to evaluate the impact of the Outdoor Education Project's archery program and the method Of archery instruction, a questionnaire was mailed to workshop participants who had attended one or more of the Project's archery workshops from 1969 through February of 1973. The questionnaire was mailed to 467 individuals in 39 states and five Canadian provinces. A copy of the question- naire is found in Appendix A. To balance, to some extent, the subjectivity of the responses from the questionnaire a taped telephone interview was conducted to further judge the impact of the Project's archery workshops. Ten educators were selected on the basis of their knowledge of the goals of the Outdoor Education Project's archery program, their positions as Observers of current practice, and their qualifications to judge the effectiveness of any subsequent adoptions of the goals and methodologies in school, college, or recreation agency programs. It was reasoned that congruence between the self-reported answers to the questionnaire and the observations of those activities by the ten educators would provide a cross validation for the data upon which several conclusions are based. 82 83 Presentation of Data These ten persons selected for the telephone interview represented ten different states and were serving in the following professional capacities: State Department of Education 3 County Supervisor Of Physical Education and Athletics 1 Director Of Conservation School 1 College/University Physical Education, Recreation InstructorsI 3 Director of Community Education 1 Elementary/Secondary Physical Education2 1 They answered the questions on the basis of having observed archery in the settings: Scholastic Setting Elementary 1 Junior High School 3 Senior High School 5 College 4 Adult 1 Recreational Agpncnyetting 4-H 1 Boy Scouts 1 Camp Program (Grades 3-12) 1 Summer Program (Grades 3-7) 1 84 Some of the respondents in the telephone interview reported multiple observations; thus the sum of settings exceeded the number of respondents. The restuls of the telephone counter check are presented in Table l as an agreement-disagreement dichotomy relative to the participants' responses to comparable questionnaire items. Questions concerning expansion of programs as a result of the workshop, improved ability in group instruction and improved archery programs were asked of the workshop participants and the telephone respondents. TABLE 1.--Comparison Of responses to three questions from telephone interview and questionnaire. . Respondent Quest1on Category Yes No Are you aware of the expansion of Questionnaire 152 21 programs that include all or portions Telephone 9 l of this method of teaching archery? DO you feel, as a result Of the Questionnaire 197 4 Outdoor Education Project's archery Telephone 9 1 workshops, that instructors are better equipped to offer group instruction in archery? In your opinion, have the archery Questionnaire 166 24 programs improved as the result Of Telephone 10 O the experience at the workshop? The observed agreement between the telephone interview and the self reported data does provide favorable evidence for cross- validation of the questionnaire responses. 85 Questionnaires were mailed to 467 teachers, recreation leaders, administrators, and graduate students who had been trained and certified as Basic Archery Instructors by the American Archery Council. Fifty-six questionnaires were returned by the postal service because of a change of address. Thus, of the original 467 questionnaires mailed 411 were assumed to have been delivered. Two hundred five were returned with partial or complete answers to the eleven questions with two unusable. The number of respondents was thus reduced to 203. TABLE 2.--Category breakdown of mailed questionnaire. Category of Questionnaire Number Mailed 467 Returned by Postal Service 56 Assumed Delivered 411 Returned 205 Spoiled 2 Not Returned 206 Fifty-two (52) respondents reported they were no longer involved in teaching or coordinating archery programs. However, all of them answered portions or all of the questions. The characteristics of the respondents were gathered from responses to questions one through four: 86 1. Archery instruction prior to the workshop 148 NO archery instruction prior to the workshop 55_ 2. Currently responsible for archery instruction or coordination .151 Not currently responsible for archery instruction or coordination .52 3. Archery instruction subsequent to the workshop 44_ 4. Grade levels in which the participant teaches archery3 K-3 2_ 4—6 20_ 7-9 47_ 10-12 64 College Z§_ Adults 16_ Summer Camp _1 Special Education 1_ NO Indication 33_ The respondents were placed into two categories, (1) with instruction prior to the workshop, and (2) without instruction prior to the workshop. This distinction over previous archery experience must be made so that reported changes can be estimated as they relate to or do not relate to the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshop. The acceptance of new methods by adults with previously established behavioral patterns is an obstacle that needs to be dealt with for effective change to occur. To examine the interest generated by attendance at the Outdoor Education Project's archery workshop to attend subsequent archery instruction the participants were asked to report if they had attended any instruction following workshop attendance. Subsequent attendance is examined in relationship to instruction prior to attendance at the workshop and the number of months elapsed since attending the archery workshop. 87 Table 3 presents the distribution of participants with and without archery instruction prior to attending the archery workshop and those attending subsequent instruction. TABLE 3.--Distribution of workshop participants with and without prior instruction relative to subsequent archery instruction. Prior Instruction Subsequent Instruction Yes No Total Yes 15.8% 5.9% 21.7% NO 57.1% 21.2% 78.3% TOTAL 72.1% 27.9% 100.0% TABLE 4.~-Distribution of workshop participants who had subsequent archery instruction relative to their prior instruction. Prior Instruction Yes NO Had Subsequent Archery Instruction 21.6% 21.8% Table 3 indicates that the majority Of the respondents did not seek additional archery instruction. However, Table 4 shows an almost identical percentage of workshop participants sought subsequent instruction regardless of their prior instruction. In Table 5 the amount of elapsed time is examined in relationship to subsequent archery instruction. 88 &N.mm &m.~ xm.— &o.m &N.op &m.wm oz &m.¢n &N.OP &m.mp &N.mp &m.w_ xw._m &m.© &m.¢ xm.m &m.© &N.PN mm> xo._m m.mm &¢.FP &©.m— &©.mp mgpcos mcpcoe mzpcos mcucos Nm1m¢ melon mM1¢N mmiwp mmmp Lo FF coppozLumcH coppuzLumCH mpmpOF . ppmzcmmnzm nosmxeoz mcwncmpp< mocwm emmamFm mgpcoz .mmae_ we?“ 6 cu awzmcowum—mc :_ cowposeumcw ucmacwmnzm m:_ucmpum magmawuwpema gogmxeoz eo cowpznwcpmwoir.m m4m em.m~ NN.N NL.N em.“ so.o_ GL.N oz eu.am mm> em.au A ON em.a_ NA.NF Na.e_ Na.o_ mm» mcpcoe mgpcoe mgpcos mcucos mgucoe umuoaucou Nm-ma Na-em mm-am MN-N_ mmo_ co F_ eo_wwwuwmeH co mpmuop . nmpmwmm< nozmxcoz mcwucmuu< mocwm nomaopm mcucoz .mmqm_ we?“ m o» awcmcowpwpmc cw cowuoaeumcw acmcocm cng mmzmamp_ou m:_pm_mmm Lo maocmxeoz mcwuuzccou mpcmawowpcma nocmxeoz co cowpznwepm_oir.N m4moc Lo ucooxm cu :o—o on: mucoozuwpcooii.m mom NN.om zo.m zo.m zo.o ow.o_ zo.o oz xo.zo mmz om.oo zo.mp zo.m_ zo.mp &_.mz xo.mp mm> mzpcos mzpcoe mzucos mcucos mzwcoe Notoe Nerom mmIeN mmim_ mmmp co FF cozuooeomcH pom5m>oeosH mFopoz Lowe; Eocooco oozmxcoz ocwucmpu< moczm ummoopm mzucoz .mmoop mew“ o co owzmcowuo_me cw mucmzewoxw oozmzeoz Lzmzu eo “zoom; o mo u=m5m>ocoew Eocooco cows» :0 cozczoo mucoo_o?pcooii.m_ mooemucz mcozoump coo mpcoowowpeoo oozmxeoz m.uumooco mop on omucoomc mo meoeooeo oeozoeo cw com: mzoeco we mmozz11.m_ moo