The aim of this chapter is a broad description of AEL. Certain key concepts such as adventure and experiential learning will be defined. The instruments used by the AEL Practitioner will be touched on briefly in order to highlight the diversity and usefulness of the AEL process.

“Adventure-related experiential learning is a process through which a learner constructs knowledge, skill and value from direct adventure-related experiences and in-depth reflection.” Heunis (1997)

Adventure-related experiential learning (AEL) is a new concept founded within proven training principles. In the past, students would sit in classrooms, listening to what teachers have to say. In alignment with the paradigm shift advocated by Capra and Jansen in the world of science, we are facing the same dilemma within the education sphere.
New value can now be taken from experiences that previously occurred without meaning and without aim. These experiences were isolated and students were never given the opportunity to take that which they had learnt from the experiences into their lives. A ball game (Moon Ball) in which participants aim to keep a beach ball aloft, while hitting it alternatively can be used as a metaphor for communication, teamwork, timing, encouragement, synergy and achieving pre-set goals. AEL adds value to old activities such as hiking, rock climbing and abseiling and even simple games of touches. (I.e.: Tag games).

When one considers the concept AEL, it is important that we first define adventure and then experiential learning as the two are very often confused. In many cases these concepts are placed on equal footing.

The training for AEL also requires a study of the philosophical, historical, psychological and ethical aspects of the subject to provide a sound base for career development; this will be discussed in more detail in chapters to follow.

Proudman (1992) reaffirms this confusion, “one issue for me is precisely the degree to which many people currently do equate experiential learning with various high adrenaline, high challenge, and highly physical ventures.”

The concept is also associated in the media with fear, danger and tragedies. It would appear that the degree of physical risk inherent to the activity is used to determine the adventure experience that the participant may be entering. When slogans such as “Living on the edge”, “Living dangerously”, “Over the edge”, etc. are used to focus attention on sensational experiences, it is difficult to see the educational value of an adventure experience and often there is the impression that these experiences are not accessible to all sectors of the society.

The concepts experiential learning and adventure are seen as being synonymous and thus is very difficult to conceptualise either one of them. However, the distinction can be made in that experiential learning has a close relationship with activity in which challenge and excitement are eminent. There are certain activities that are associated with adventure such as problem-solving activities, wilderness retreats, rock climbing and ropes courses and these all form part of the tools of the AEL Facilitator.

Experiential learning is not something new it has always been with us. It is the overwhelming dominance of this new type of learning with its emphasis on vicarious experience that has led to the reintroduction of thereof. The reasons for this re analysis of the role of experience in learning come from the failure of contemporary schooling to meet the needs of the youth. Kraft (1990) Experiential learning cannot be understood simply as a particular set of activities. Adventure experiences, new games and ropes courses are all linked to experiential learning in the minds of many people. As valuable as back packing, rock climbing, canoe trips and ropes courses are, they comprise only a small part of the potential arena (refer to Table 1.1).

Actual experiential approaches are better understood in terms of style and any topic can be explored using such techniques. Students are actively engaged exploring things for themselves rather than being told the answer. Although practitioners often site their particular favourite outcomes, experiential approaches are not restricted to a specific set of goals or domains.

Topical field trips seldom represent experiential education / learning, when students are asked to absorb seemingly irrelevant information while walking through a zoo. Their senses may become just as dulled as if they were completing classroom work sheets. Active mode refers to how the students minds are used, not their legs. It is easy to run a bogus programme in the woods, as you can in the classroom, carefully explaining the workings of the world to everyone. To a group; initiative problems, wilderness programmes, rock climbing and ropes courses are especially fun and motivating but if used thoughtlessly they become mere diversions, fun; but pointless.

The experiential approach is what is known as being student-centred. This implies providing minimum necessary structure. In other words, the teacher’s role is to give just enough assistance for students to understand. If the teacher carries out the role properly, students will accomplish more than they ever could on their own, yet if the approach is truly student-centred, they may not be aware that the teacher had a role at all. Another critical role for the teacher is to help students make connections. The students must eventually understand the point of an experience for it to be a “learning experience”, and that point seldom emerges fully developed on its own.

With some combinations of insight, skill and input from the group, the best facilitators can create experiences so analogous to real life situations that the key points are bound to emerge from within the group’s discussion.
Chapman (1992) believes that experiential techniques are especially effective when trying to address community issues. If we want to encourage an understanding of the power of co-operation, we must have our students do more than just discuss it, they must experience and feel it.

The international Commission on the Development of Education in 1972, issued a UNESCO report calling for lifelong integration of education, work and leisure. This implies that students could leave and return to their studies without penalty at any time. Distinctions between in-school and out-of-school education should be eliminated. The ability to do a job, not a credential, should be the criteria for hiring. Kraft (1990)

   Conclusion

What is experiential learning? It is an approach, which has students actively engaged in exploring questions they find relevant and meaningful, and has them trusting that feelings as well as thinking can lead to knowledge.

The problem cannot be solved with the information given.

The following argument can be made: If the statement on box A is true, then the statement on box B is true, since that is what the statement on box A says. But the statement on box B states that the statement on box A is false, which contradicts the original assumption. Therefore, the statement on box A must be false. This implies that either the statement on box B is false or that the gold is in box B. If the statement on box B is false, then either the statement on box A is true (which it cannot be) or the gold is in box B. Either way, the gold is in box B.

However, there is a hidden assumption in this argument: namely, that each statement must be either true or false. This assumption leads to paradoxes, for example, consider the statement: “This statement is false.” If it is true, it is false; if it is false, it is true. The only way out of the paradox is to deny that the statement is either true or false and label it meaningless instead. Both of the statements on the boxes are therefore meaningless and nothing can be concluded from them. Common sense dictates that this problem cannot be solved with the information given. After all, how can we deduce which box contains the gold simply by reading statements written on the outside of the box? Suppose we deduce that the gold is in box B by whatever line of reasoning we choose. What is to stop us from simply putting the gold in box A, regardless of what we deduced?