Daniel, & Deborah, 2003; Shayne, 2000). In Malaysia, outdoor education ..... a linear period of time (Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988). Outdoor Pursuit Activities.
EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ON GROUP COHESION AMONG SECOND YEAR UNDERGRADUATE TEACHER TRAINEES FROM SELECTED TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES IN MALAYSIA
By MAZUKI BIN MOHD YASIM
Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
July 2016
COPYRIGHT All material contained within the thesis, including without limitation text, logos, icons, photographs and all other artwork, is copyright material of Universiti Putra Malaysia unless otherwise stated. Use may be made of any material contained within the thesis for non-commercial purposes from the copyright holder. Commercial use of material may only be made with the express, prior, written permission of Universiti Putra Malaysia. Copyright © Universiti Putra Malaysia
ii
Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ON GROUP COHESION AMONG SECOND YEAR UNDERGRADUATE TEACHER TRAINEES FROM SELECTED TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES IN MALAYSIA
By MAZUKI BIN MOHD YASIM
July 2016 Chair: Azlizam bin Aziz, PhD Faculty: Forestry
The study seeks to investigate the effect of outdoor education camp toward group cohesion on the second year undergraduate teacher trainees from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. It also examines the socio-demographic influences and sequence of activity that encourage group cohesion improvement. The study also attempts to shed light upon the delayed effect after two months completion of the camp. A pre-test and posttest approach with non-equivalent control group was utilised among 350 second year undergraduate students from four selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. Meanwhile, there is no control group used for the delayed post-test. A modified version of Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) and open ended questionnaire were used to gather data from pre, post and delayed post-test. Results from MANCOVA procedures suggested that the camp had positively improved the experimental group‟s group cohesion. Previous experience, place of residence, gender and camp location were found to have significant influence on the improvement of group cohesion. However, the study also revealed that this gain diminished over the two month period as measured by the delayed post-test. Responses from teacher trainees found that sequence of activity from low to high risk activity is the appropriate and influenced students‟ group cohesion improvement.
i
Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk ijazah Doktor Falsafah KESAN PENDIDIKAN LUAR TERHADAP KESEPADUAN KUMPULAN DALAM KALANGAN GURU PELATIH TAHUN DUA DARI INSTITUT PENDIDIKAN GURU MALAYSIA TERPILIH
Oleh MAZUKI BIN MOHD YASIM
Julai 2016 Pengerusi: Azlizam bin Aziz, PhD Fakulti: Perhutanan
Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji kesan perkhemahan pendidikan luar terhadap kesepaduan kumpulan guru pelatih tahun dua dari Institut Pendidikan Guru terpilih di Malaysia. Kajian ini juga turut mengkaji pengaruh sosiodemografi dan urutan aktiviti semasa program perkhemahan yang menggalakkan peningkatan perpaduan kumpulan. Selain itu, kajian ini juga bertujuan untuk memberi penerangan tentang kesan ujian pasca yang dilewatkan selama dua bulan selepas kem perkhemahan berakhir. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah ujian pra dan pasca dengan menggunaan kumpulan kawalan. Data kajian dipungut daripada 350 pelajar tahun dua dari empat Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia yang terpilih. Soal Selidik Persekitaran Kumpulan (GEQ) dan soalan terbuka telah digunakan untuk mengumpul data dari ujian pra dan pasca. Manakala tiada kumpulan kawalan digunakan bagi ujian pasca yang dilewatkan. Analisis MANCOVA menunjukkan bahawa perkhemahan pendidikan luar ini telah berjaya meningkatkan secara positif perpaduan kumpulan guru pelatih. Penglibatan aktif dalam aktiviti luar, lokasi tempat tinggal, jantina dan lokasi perkhemahan didapati mempunyai pengaruh yang besar ke atas peningkatan kesepaduan kumpulan. Walau bagaimanapun, kajian itu juga mendedahkan bahawa melalui ujian pasca yang dilewatkan mendapati kesan perkhemahan pendidikan luar menjadi semakin berkurangan selapas tempoh dua bulan. Selain daripada itu, kajian itu turut mendapati bahawa urutan aktiviti dari yang berisiko rendah kepada aktiviti berisiko tinggi adalah amat bersesuaian dan mempengaruhi peningkatan perpaduan kumpulan guru pelatih.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the wonderful group of people who have helped make this „impian‟ a reality. Thank you to:
The Ministry of Higher Education and the Sultan Idris Education University for sponsoring my study. My great supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Azlizam bin Aziz, Associate Professor Dr. Abdullah Mohd, Associate Professor Dr. Md Amin Md Taff, Dr. Saidon Amri and Dr. Siti Suriawati Isa and all Faculty of Forestry staff for their extensive time, suggestions, enthusiasm and encouragement. You guys are my role models. Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia, Campus Perlis, Temenggung Ibrahim, Tun Razak and Raja Melewar for their lovely camp experiences. Mr. John, Dr. Hafizal, Mus, Lan, Abu, Fiza…For being friends… Mek Dah, Kak Leha, Abang Li and Mek Na.. Thanks for all the good prayers until I reach the final destination.. My father, late mother and late mother in law who always inspired me along this journey.. This journey has taught me much about love and lost.. Mama, Ayong, Adam, Adik Ammar and Adik Maryam who have sacrificed a lot... This „journey‟ have taught us a lot about life, love and family…
May Allah Bless You All Guys..Amin..
iii
I certify that a Thesis Examination Committee has met on (date of viva voce) to conduct the final examination of (student‟s name)on his (her) thesis entitled (“Title of Thesis”)in accordance with the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and the Constitution of the Universiti Putra Malaysia [P.U.(A) 106] 15 March 1998. The Committee recommends that the student be awarded the (insert the name of relevant degree). Members of the Thesis Examination Committee were as follows: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Shukri Mohamad Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia (Chairman) Assoc.Prof. Dr. Manohar Mariapan Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia (Internal Examiner) LAr. Dr. Suhardi Maulan Faculty of Design and Architecture Universiti Putra Malaysia (Internal Examiner) Dr. Vinesh Chandra School of Curriculum Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology Australia (External Examiner)
________________________ (ZULKARNAIN ZAINAL, PhD) Professor and Deputy Dean School of Graduate Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia Date:
iv
This thesis was submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been accepted as fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The members of the Supervisory Committee were as follows: Azlizam bin Aziz, PhD Associate Professor Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia (Chairman) Abdullah Mohd, PhD Associate Professor Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member) Saidon Amri, PhD Senior Lecturer Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (Member) Siti Suriawati Isa, PhD Senior Lecturer Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member) Md Amin Md Taff, PhD Associate Professor Faculty of Sports Science and Coaching Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (Member)
________________________ BUJANG BIN KIM HUAT, PhD Professor and Dean School of Graduate Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia Date:
v
Declaration by graduate student I hereby confirm that:
this thesis is my original work; quotations, illustrations and citations have been duly referenced; this thesis has not been submitted previously or concurrently for any other degree at any other institutions; intellectual property from the thesis and copyright of thesis are fullyowned by Universiti Putra Malaysia, as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012; written permission must be obtained from supervisor and the office of Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) before thesis is published (in the form of written, printed or in electronic form) including books, journals, modules, proceedings, popular writings, seminar papers, manuscripts, posters, reports, lecture notes, learning modules or any other materials as stated in theUniversiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012; there is no plagiarism or data falsification/fabrication in the thesis, and scholarly integrity is upheld as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) and the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012. The thesis has undergone plagiarism detection software.
Signature: ________________________
Date: __________________
Name and Matric No.: _________________________________________
vi
Declaration by Members of Supervisory Committee This is to confirm that: the research conducted and the writing of this thesis was under our supervision; supervision responsibilities as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013)are adhered to.
Signature: Name of Chairman of Supervisory Committee:
Azlizam bin Aziz, PhD
Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee:
Abdullah Mohd, PhD
Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee:
Saidon Amri, PhD
Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee:
Siti Suriawati Isa, PhD
Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee:
Md Amin Md Taff, PhD
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page i ii iii iv vi xi xii xiii
ABSTRACT ABSTRAK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPROVAL DECLARATION LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
2
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Problem statement 1.3 Justification and Significance of the Study 1.4 Research question 1.5 Research objectives 1.6 Limitation 1.7 Delimitation 1.8 Definition and Measurement of Key Terms 1.9 Chapter summary LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Semantic and Definition 2.2.1 Recreation and Leisure 2.2.2 Outdoor Recreation 2.2.3 Outdoor Education 2.2.4 Relationship of Outdoor Recreation to Outdoor Education 2.3 Basic Tenet of Outdoor Education 2.3.1 Philosophy 2.4 Development of Outdoor Education in Malaysia 2.4.1 The Influence of Outward Bound Lumut, Malaysia 2.4.2 The Influence of Government and Private Sector‟s Outdoor Education Programmes 2.4.3 Outdoor Education in Malaysian Educational System 2.4.4 Outdoor Education in the Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia 2.5 The Focus of Outdoor Education viii
1 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 9
10 10 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 18
19 20 21
2.6 2.7 2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11 2.12 3
Outdoor Education Learning Process 2.6.1 Theory and Model of Learning Group Cohesion Sequencing of Activity in Outdoor Education 2.8.1 Sequencing Model 2.8.2 Sequencing and Group Cohesion Theoretical Foundation 2.9.1 Carrons‟ Group Cohesion Model Research Conceptual Framework 2.10.1 Independent Variable 2.10.2 Dependent Variable Summary of Previous Study Chapter Summary
DESIGN, INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURE 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Design of Study 3.3 Population and Sampling 3.3.1 The Experimental Group 3.3.2 The Control Group 3.4 Place of Research 3.5 Instrumentations 3.5.1 Student‟s Demographic Inventory 3.5.2 Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) 3.6 Instrument Reliability 3.7 Pilot Study 3.8 Factor Analysis 3.9 Discriminant Validity 3.10 Data Collection Procedure 3.10.1 Initial Contact 3.10.2 Researcher‟s Participation 3.10.3 Administering Pre-Test 3.10.4 The Treatment Camp 3.10.4.1 Camp-Based Activities 3.10.4.2 Adventure-Based Activity 3.10.5 Administering Post-Test 3.10.6 Administering Delayed Post-Test 3.11 Data Analysis 3.12 Data Cleaning and Verification 3.12.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests 3.12.2 Internal Consistency of the GEQ 3.12.2.1 ATG-T Subscale Reliability Analysis 3.12.2.2 ATG-S Subscale Reliability Analysis 3.12.2.3 GI-T Subscale Reliability Analysis ix
23 23 27 28 28 29 29 30 32 34 36 37 37 39 39 42 42 43 44 44 44 44 47 50 51 55 55 56 56 56 57 58 58 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 64
3.13 4
5
3.12.2.4 GI-S Subscale Reliability Analysis Chapter Summary
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Socio Demographic Variables and Profile of the Respondents 4.2.1 Experimental Group 4.2.2 Control Group 4.2.3 Summary of Demographic and Social Analysis 4.3 Research Questions 4.3.1 Research Question 1 4.3.2 Research Question 2 4.3.3 Research Question 3 4.3.4 Research Question 4 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Conclusion 5.3 Research implications 5.3.1 Implication to the Body of Knowledge 5.3.2 Implication to the Implementation of Effective Practice 5.4 Recommendation For Future Research 5.5 Chapter Summary
REFERENCES APPENDICES BIODATA OF STUDENT LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
x
65 65
66 66 68 70 72 73 73 88 101 113
122 122 123 123 125 128 129 130 164 177 178
LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12 4.13
4.14 4.15
Page List of Panel of Experts Original and Revised Item Statements GEQ Internal Consistency Result of KMO and Bartlett's Test Result of Total Variance Explained Result of Rotated Component Matrixª Result of Component Transformation Matrix Details of Treatment Camp List of Camp Based Activity List of Adventure-based Activity Data Analysis Techniques Internal Consistency of the GEQ Socio-demographic and Profile of the Respondents Student‟s Academic Background Result of Paired Sample T-Test for the pre and Post-test GEQ Scores Result of MANOVA Examining the level of Group Cohesion Before the Camp Results of Univariate ANOVA Examining the Level of Group Cohesion before the Camp Results of the MANCOVA Test Examining the level of Group Cohesion after the Camp Results of Univariate ANOVA Examining the level of Group Cohesion after the camp Overall Result of Paired Simple T-Test for the Post and Delayed Post-test GEQ Scores Results of the Paired Sample T-Test Examining Effect after Two Months Completion of the Perlis‟s Campus Camp Results of the Paired Sample T-Test Examining Effect after Two Months Completion of the Raja Melewar‟s Campus Camp Results of the Paired Sample T-Test Examining Effect after Two Months Completion of the Tun Razak Campus Camp Results of the Paired Sample T-Test Examining Effect after Two Months Completion of the Temenggung Ibrahim Campus Camp MANOVA and MANCOVA Analyses for Influence of Socio-demographic Variables on Teacher Trainee‟s Group Cohesion in Outdoor Education Camp Before and After the Camp Rank Order of Activities that Positively Influence Students‟ Group Cohesion Comparison of Sequence of Activity for the Current Finding with Previous Study xi
48 49 51 52 53 54 55 57 59 60 62 64 67 68 74 77 77 82 83 89 90
91
92
93 102
114 118
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2
Page Outdoor Education Tree Outdoor Education Focus Model Kolb‟s Experiential Learning Model Outward Bound Educational Process Model Group Cohesion Model Carron‟s Conceptual Model of Group Cohesion Design of Study A Conceptual Model for Team Cohesion in Sport
xii
16 22 24 26 31 32 41 47
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATG-S ATG-T BIG CAT CGCM ELM GEQ GI-S GI-T MOE MPIK OB OBEPM PLKN TED UiTM UKM UPM UPSI
Attraction to Group Social Attraction to Group Task Bina Insan Guru Corporate Adventure Training Carron‟s Group Cohesion Model Experiential Learning Model Group Environment Questionnaire Group Integartion Social Group Integaration Task Ministry of Education Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas Outward Bound Outward Bound Educational Process Model Program Latihan Khidmat Negara Teacher Education Division Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Outdoor education is a form of learning process conducted in both outdoor and indoor settings which involves challenging or adventure activities as a medium to foster individual, personal and social growth (Fiskum & Jacobsen, 2012; Foley, 2009). It has been proven useful in promoting academic achievement, work commitment, critical thinking, and in preventing delinquency (Ewert, 2005). According to Foley (2009), outdoor education is interchangeable with other terms and often referred to as adventure education, adventure programming, outdoor learning, outdoor school, adventure therapy, adventure recreation, adventure tourism, expeditionary learning, challenge education, experiential education, environmental education, and wilderness education. Typically, the stated objectives of outdoor education are improving group cohesion, leadership skills, improving problem-solving skills, selfconceptualization, increasing trust, and improving communication (Bobilya, Holman, Lindley, & McAvoy, 2010; Shivers-Blackwell, 2004). In other words, the emphasis on interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships is frequently considered to be the primary focus of outdoor education (Priest & Gass, 2005; Zink & Boyes, 2006). One of the most popular programmes in outdoor education is outdoor education camping (Baghani, 1981; Mohd Taib & Norlena, 2014). Outdoor education camping at higher institution currently encompasses a wide range of opportunities for students development (Uhls et al., 2014). The main goal of these generally focuses on students‟ group cohesion, leadership, self-esteem, character development and their personal and social development (Martin, 2010). Therefore, these programmes are typically expected to translate into lower student attrition rates, increase level of cohesion, increase academic performances, greater levels of emotional and social developments, and more positive attitude toward the institution that they are newly entering (Michael, Daniel, & Deborah, 2003; Shayne, 2000). In Malaysia, outdoor education has been developed as a consequence of Razak Report 1956 which stressed on national unity through the education system (Ministry of Education, 1956). As the first education report, Razak‟s Report highlighted the importance of educational development in Malaysia. This was then followed by the National Education Policy (Education Act 1961) which strengthens the importance roles of education as a tool for national unity and nation building has become a tool of social system (Ishak, 2005). Thus the Ministry of Education had launched the National Education Philosophy that focuses on the development of physical, emotional, spiritual and socially wellbalanced individuals through indoor and outdoor teaching strategies (Ministry of Education, 2013a). 1
To achieve these objectives, the creation of quality and excellent teachers is the goal and the mission of the Teacher Education Division (TED), at the Malaysian Ministry of Education. Teacher quality is fundamental aspect of the success of the newly launched National Education Policy (Abu Bakar, 2002 cited in Azita, 2007). In line with the goal, the TED has set the philosophy of teacher education which outlines: Teacher, who is noble in character, progressive and scientific in outlook, committed to uphold the aspirations of the nation, and cherishes the national cultural heritage, ensures the development of the individual and the preservation of a united, democratic, progressive and disciplined society (Ministry of Education, 2013b, p. 15). Hence, the TED has prepared the curriculum and syllabus based on the philosophy outlined which includes the three components that have an equal weightage of academic, co-curricular and practicum to be applied in Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia (Azita, 2007). One of the academic components contained in the curriculum is outdoor education subject which focus to develop well balanced teacher trainees (Ministry of Education, 2001). The syllabus requires teacher trainees to attend outdoor education camping programmes for six days. In these six days outdoor education camping programmes, the teacher trainees are exposed to outdoor pursuit activities in which the main objectives are to gain their personal and social development, outdoor pursuit skill and management skill. Traditional base camp approach is applied with teacher trainees need to sleep in tents with their group members and prepare their own meals. Meanwhile, during day time they are required to experience outdoor pursuit activities and management skills. On the other hand, at night they are encouraged to have a series of group discussion, games and presentations to maximise the outcomes. The outcome of the outdoor education camp is also found to be linked with enhancement in personal and social development, adventure experience and environmental education (Lynch, 2011). From the perspective of benefits on personal and social development it is suggested that outdoor education camp may generate positive results in group cohesion (Boyle, 2002; Chang & Bordia, 2006; Eys, Ritchie, Little, Slade, & Oddson, 2008; Gass, 1987; Gass, Garvey, & Sugerman, 2003; Jaffry, 2012; Malcarne, 2012; Mazuki, 2010; O'Bannon, 2000; Paisley et al., 2014). However, in contrast, there are some researchers who argued and found contradictory results that outdoor education camp can significantly influenced group cohesion (e.g. Bailey, 2000; Bjorklund & Bering, 2008; Lane, 2008; Murphy, 2001). In general, they claimed that after one week of outdoor education camp, no significant change was found. Therefore, amidst all the inconclusive findings, there is a need for a systematic research to gather empirical evidence in order to support the claims that 2
outdoor education camp in the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia have a major enduring effects on group cohesion (Sheard & Golby, 2006b). This study plans to examine the impacts of outdoor education on group cohesion among participants from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. It also increased our understanding on the relevance of providing outdoor educational experiences for those students. This inquiry will help the particular tertiary educational institutions that are involved in the study and the Ministry of Education, in order to make a new policy regarding outdoor education camp in the future. 1.2 Problem Statement
Several outdoor educators and researchers have proposed that participation in outdoor education camps is effective in fostering participants‟ group cohesion (Boyle, 2002; Bunting, 2006; Chang & Bordia, 2006; Garst, Baughman, Franz, & Seidel, 2013; Hatch & McCarthy, 2005; McKenzie, 2000b; Stroud, 2006). This assumption was made as outdoor education emphasized on the importance of interpersonal relationship and group cohesion (Sibthorp, Furman, Paisley, & Gookin, 2009). Based on these assumptions, the Malaysian Ministry of Education had highlights the importance of outdoor education camps to foster group cohesion among Malaysian students. This was done through the establishment of National Services Programme (PLKN), Co-curricular Centre, the enactment of outdoor education topic in physical education subject in school, and the inclusion of outdoor education subject in Teachers Training curriculum. However, the effectiveness of outdoor education camps as a catalyst for the formation of group cohesion is debatable, due to inconsistent findings. For instance, several studies in outdoor education camps found insignificant results of group cohesion enrichment, and inconsistent finding on task and social aspects that influences group cohesion (Borland, Burton, & Kane, 2014). While others reported participants did not show any changes after experiencing learning in environmental setting due to lack of classroom reinforcements (Knapp, 2000), less effects on behavioural outcomes (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992), lack of appropriate sequence of activities and insufficient transfer of learning (Bisson, 1997; Furman & Sibthorp, 2012) These inconsistent findings posed a challenge to the implementation of outdoor education in Malaysian educational system, especially the socio-economic aspects of the subject. As camping involves abundant time of planning, resources and finances, the current scenario of inconclusive effects of camping is tapping outdoor education subject at stake. To date, the National Services programs which focus on outdoor education approach as a medium of national cohesion building were put on halt for a year. Plus, budget cut in Malaysia education sector might affect the 3
implementation of outdoor education camps in schools and Teachers Training Institute as it involves extensive amount of money. In addition, the delayed effects of outdoor education camping especially in Teachers Training Institute towards group cohesion were rarely examined in Malaysia (Md Amin, Azlizam, Jaffry, 2011). To address these knowledge gaps, this study is researching the short-term and long-term effects of outdoor education camps in Teachers Training Institute towards group cohesion. The Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia was chosen as a research subject because teaching is now widely acknowledged to be the most important factor influencing implementation of outdoor education in school. The current study is also examining claims made by several researcher from higher institution in Malaysia about the effectiveness of their outdoor education camps in nurturing positive group cohesion (Amy, 2007; Jaffry, 2012; Mazuki, 2010; Muhammad Norazizuddin, 2013). Specifically, the current study posed several critical questions to the implementation of outdoor education camps in Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia: (1) Does outdoor education camp effectively improve the Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia students‟ group cohesion? (2) Can the group cohesion gained from the outdoor education camp transferred into participants‟ daily life and effective in long-term? (3) Are there any social demographic influences on the development of group cohesion among students? (4) What is the sequence of activities in outdoor education camp that might be influential in enhancing group cohesion? Finding from this research will underline the future body of knowledge, curriculum and practices of outdoor education camp on group cohesion in Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia. 1.3 Justification and Significance of the Study
One of the trends in the field of outdoor education is a need for evaluation of programmes' effectiveness (Attarian, 2001; Bobilya et al., 2010; Johnson, 2012). A number of groups are increasingly interested in having programmes outcomes measured through evidence-based evaluation (Sibthorp, 2009). Since outdoor education is claimed as a powerful medium for learning process, many studies have been conducted in examining the effects of outdoor education, especially on participants' personal and social development (American Institute for Research, 2005; Boyle, 2002; Shivers-Blackwell, 2003; Williams, Graham, & Baker, 2003). However, the effectiveness of outdoor education in improving group cohesion does not remain longer and criticized by many researchers (Boulware, Forgey, & Martin, 2003). There are various studies radically questioned such influences by requesting for empirical evidences rather than only assuming such positive outcomes. Bogner (2002), for instance judged any demonstrable positive effects of outdoor education camp as ill-founded. Yet, the evidences supporting 4
the positive impacts of the outdoor experience are often incomplete, anecdotal, and based on studies involving small and restricted populations. This lack of sufficient and rigorously derived data has been particularly evident in the case of the impacts of outdoor education camp on group cohesion (Cumming & Corney, 1987). In addition, this is the first study that explores the delayed effect of outdoor education on group cohesion in a broader context in the Malaysian outdoor education settings and thus could form the basis for a future longitudinal study. Therefore, this research will be a unique contribution to the growing body of literature on outdoor education camp and learning communities in higher education in Malaysia in proving the effects of outdoor education on group cohesion. The outcome of this study also can be used as an indicator for outdoor educators in Malaysia and as useful information for the Malaysian Ministry of Education to enhance the syllabus of the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia if needed. Furthermore, to better understand the effects of group cohesion in outdoor education at the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia, empirical research is needed. 1.4 Research Question
The following research questions are the central interest of this study: 1. Do outdoor education camps in selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia affect teacher trainees‟ short term group cohesion? 2. Do outdoor education camps in selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia affect teacher trainees‟ group cohesion affect after two months after program completion? 3. How do the changes in teacher trainees‟ group cohesion influenced by their socio-demographic variables? 4. What sequence of activities in the outdoor education camps do the participants perceived as influencing their group cohesion? 1.5 Research Objectives
The general objective of this study is to examine the effect of outdoor education camp on group cohesion among outdoor education students from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. More specifically, the objectives of this study are: (a) (b) (c)
to determine the short-term effects of outdoor education towards group cohesion in selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia, to determine the delayed effect of outdoor education camp on group cohesion, to determine the influences of socio-demographic variables on teacher trainees‟ group cohesion, and 5
(d)
to identify sequence of activities in the outdoor education camp programmes that might influence teacher trainees‟ group cohesion.
1.6 Limitation
Several limitations were identified in this study on group cohesion as a result of participation in the outdoor education camp. (a) This study is limited to the four campuses of the selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia as was declared by The Ministry of Education as the niche area for Physical Education campuses. (b) This study is limited to the camp location as decided by each campus according to the criteria given by the Ministry of Education. (c) This study is limited to purposive sampling techniques where the four campuses of the selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia were chosen to form the sample that is representative of the population. The technique was chosen as more convenient (to include people of interest) and economical but it did not contribute to generalisation (Babbie, 2012). (d) The study of delayed effect is limited to two months due to time constraint. A two-month length of time was chosen as the follow up administration period for two reasons. First, a two-month length was the first interval at which long term gains were found in Priest (1996) and Priest‟s (1998b) studies and was between the time intervals in which long-term gains dissipated in Priest and Lesperance‟s 1994 study. Second, a two month delay was the latest possible point at which participants in this study could be assessed after completion of the camp due to a long semester break. (e) The presence of the researcher in each outdoor education camp may have influenced directly how each camp was facilitated. Therefore, to minimise the issue, the researcher make sure the camp programme is accord with the tentative. (f) The presence of the researcher in each outdoor education camp may have influenced participants to provide socially desirable responses to the questionnaire. To minimise the issue, the researcher did not mention post-test and delayed post-test in order to minimize the halo effect. Halo effect is the tendency of a research population to let current rating influence future rating (Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006). 1.7 Delimitation
The following delimitations are placed on this study: (a) The study is delimited on the subject of outdoor education from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia as announced by the Ministry of Education. 6
(b) Group cohesion is accessed by the Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ) (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). (c) The study is delimited to the six days and five nights‟ outdoor education camping programmes. (d) This study is delimited to the response of outdoor education students from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia on student group cohesion only. (e) This study is delimited to the responses of outdoor education teacher trainees from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia for two months delayed effect without any control group. 1.8 Definition and Measurement of Key Terms
Given below are operational definitions as they are used in this study. Outdoor education Outdoor education refers to the use of the outdoors for educational purposes. Outdoor education often involves small groups that are actively engaged in adventurous activities for personal growth under the guidance of an instructor or leader (Neill, 2008). Operationally, in this study it refers to the outdoor education camping programmes for students from the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia which composed of several campuses namely Perlis Campus, Tun Abdul Razak Campus and Raja Melewar Campus. Outdoor Education Camp Operationally, it refers to the continuous six days and five nights outdoor education camp for the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia students that take outdoor education subject. Group cohesion A dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives (Carron, Burke, et al., 2002). Operationally, it refers to the tendency of a group of students from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia to stick together in their final outdoor education camp. Group cohesion is measured by using Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ) which consists of four dimension constructs namely group integration-task (GI-T), group integration-social (GIS), individual attraction to the group-task (ATG-T), and individual attraction to the group-social (ATG-S) (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987). Natural Environment Natural environment is commonly referred to simply as the environment, encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on earth or 7
some region thereof (Place, 2004). Operationally, it refers to the surrounding environments which the outdoor education camp was held. Physical Education and Health Physical education also known in many Commonwealth countries as physical training is an educational course related to the physique of the human body. It encourages psychomotor learning in a play or movement exploration setting to promote health (Amusa, Toriola, & Goon, 2013). Operationally, it refers to the academic programme enrolled by the experimental group from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. The focus of the programme is more on scientific study in sports, leisure, games and recreation. Social Studies Social studies are the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as linguistic, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. Operationally, in this study, it refers to the control group students in the selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. Teacher trainees Operationally, it refer to the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia undergraduate students that enrolled in physical education and social studies (February 2013) at selected campuses. Delayed effect It refers to the effects obtained in the delayed post-test which are indicators for the long-term effect. It also refers to the effects that are the results of intervention two months after completion of the outdoor education camp. Sequence It refers to a series of adventure and/or educational activities arranged through a linear period of time (Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988). Outdoor Pursuit Activities It refers to the self-propelled activities performed in an outdoor setting (Priest, 1990). These activities typically include kayaking, camping, survival, orienteering and abseiling.
8
Socio-demographic Variable It refers to a group defined by its sociological and demographic characteristics (Veghari et al., 2010). Operationally, in this study it refers to the three categories of factor namely, personal factors, environmental factors, and team factors. Personal Factor It refers to the individual characteristics of group members such as individual ability, personality, and interpersonal compatibility (Carron et al., 1985). Operationally, in this study it refers to previous experience, place of residence and gender. Environmental Factor It refers to the social and physical characteristics of the environment and included aspects such as outdoor environment (wilderness, camp, etc.) and all of its various forces, programmes components, territoriality, spatial behaviour, environmental stress, time demand, and fear or anxiety (McAvoy, Mitten, Stringer, Steckart, & Sproles, 1996). Operationally, it refers to the camp location. Team Factor It refers to the group composition (Herre, 2010) for instance, group size, and group organization (McGrath, 1964). Operationally, in this study it refers to the campus location. 1.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter lays the foundation for the thesis. It first introduces the research background and points to the current issues of outdoor education camp towards group cohesion before presenting the problem statements, research objectives and research questions. Next, the research significance is identified before the delimitation and definition of key terms are drawn. In short, on this basis, the study proceeds with a foundation and detailed description of the research.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This study proposed to examine the effect of outdoor education camp on group cohesion among outdoor education students from selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. In order to ground this study in the existing literature, six specific areas have been targeted for particular exploration: outdoor recreation, outdoor education, learning theories, sequencing model, theoretical foundation and research conceptual framework. The reviews are divided into two sections. Section one provides an overview of foundation of outdoor education. Moving from the historical root of the field to the more specific and relevant branches including in Malaysia context. On the other hand, this section also provides literature of outdoor education on group cohesion, theoretical foundation, conceptual framework and its influence on group cohesion improvement. Meanwhile, section two provides discussion of previous studies that have investigated the effect of outdoor education camping on the improvement of group cohesion. In order to carry out study of group cohesion in outdoor education, it is important to first understand the root of outdoor education in a philosophical and historical context. 2.2 Semantic and Definition
The field of outdoor education is as diverse today as it is complex, and a plethora of terms and definitions exist. The term outdoor education is widely used in order to refer to a variety of planned activities which are organised in outdoor environment for tremendous purposes (Neill, 2008). However, there are varieties of the definitions of outdoor education because the culture, philosophy and local condition influence conceptualizations, interpretations and local conditions of the understanding of the person (Brookes, 2006). Although outdoor education is accepted as one of the most popular educational methods, there are still controversy over the semantic and definition of outdoor education (Bunting, 2006). In the next subtopics, discussion will focus on the difference between leisure, recreation and outdoor education and their interrelationship.
10
2.2.1 Recreation and Leisure
Over the years recreation and leisure have proven to have a positive influence and benefit in people's lives. There are various types of social benefits attributed to participation in recreation and leisure activities such as social bonding, social support, reduced social alienation, cultural awareness, community satisfaction, and others (Goldberg, 2003). The term recreation is typically used synonymously with leisure (Martin, Cashel, Wagstaff, & Breunig, 2006). However, there is distinction between the two terms. The modern term leisure derived from the Latin term licere which means "to be free" (Lopes, 2005). Earlier definition interpreted by Clawson and Knetsch, (1974) defined leisure as "largely discretionary time, to be used as one chooses. It excludes existence and subsistence time, time spent in socially or group determined activities in which the individual would prefer not to participate". Meanwhile, in the latest definition, many scholars agreed that leisure can be considered as free time from obligation to work, family, community and so forth (Martin et al., 2006; Parr & Lashua, 2005). Leisure can be conceptualised as free time, as activity and as a state of mind of experiences (Parr & Lashua, 2005). Leisure as activity is closely aligned with the term recreation. In fact, recreation is often related as activities in which individuals participate during leisure or free time. Jensen and Guthrie (2006) defined recreation as "to generate, refresh, or recreate" represent a form of leisure in which individuals exert energy through some form of physical activity during free time. Physical activity would therefore be considered as recreation if it may generates feelings of wellbeing, satisfaction, achievement, success, and even pleasure (Godbey, 1999). For example, Pigrim (1983) defined recreation as "considered to be activity voluntarily undertaken, primarily for pleasure and satisfaction, during leisure time". Therefore based on the wise definitions and close relationship, we can conclude that recreation is considered leisure, that is recreation occurs during leisure time, but leisure is a broader concept than recreation (Martin et al., 2006). 2.2.2 Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor recreation is an applied discipline that developed since the golden age of ancient Athens during the mid-20th century in response to the communities' concern regarding the use of natural area for recreational activity (McLean & Hurd, 2012). One of the earliest definitions of outdoor recreation recognised that outdoor recreation as simply recreation that is typically carried on outdoors (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966). However, some scholar urged that interpretation of outdoor recreation should include the use of indoor facilities, which permitted traditional outdoor activities to be participated in indoors (Ford & Blanchard, 11
1985). The notion that in line with the idea of broaden the concept of outdoor recreation is based on Ford (1988) which claimed outdoor recreation should be viewed as a holistic approach, encompassing every form of recreation as well as all human interests and abilities. Though, later outdoor recreation is interpreted in more serious definition which involved human psychological aspect. For instance, outdoor recreation is defined “as the interaction between an activity and an outdoor natural environment that recreates an individual physically, psychologically, emotionally, and socially” (Leitner & Leitner, 1996). Krumpe (2006) has added element of personal expectation, satisfaction and enjoyment in his interpretation about outdoor recreation recently. He defined outdoor recreation as any form of experience during a person‟s leisure time where an individual voluntarily chooses to engage (physically or mentally) in activities due to personal expectations, satisfaction and enjoyment. More recently, definitions of outdoor recreation have become more standardized, in that they recognize many of the same fundamental characteristics. The fundamental characteristics that underlie in modern definitions are (1) undertaken outside the confines of buildings, (2) do not involve organized competition or formal rules, (3) can be undertaken with or without the existence of any built facility or infrastructure, and (4) may require outdoor areas of predominantly unmodified natural landscape. For example, Leitner and Leitner, (1996) define outdoor recreation, “as the interaction between an activity and an outdoor natural environment that recreates an individual physically, psychologically, emotionally, and socially” Similarly, in more recent definition, Ibrahim and Cordes (2008) defined outdoor recreation “as the organized free time activities that are participated in for their own sake and where there is an interaction between the participant and an element of nature”. However, it is important to note that outdoor recreation is often misinterpreted with outdoor education by many practitioners due to both term are very similar (Mazuki, Azlizam, Md Amin, & Jaffry, 2014). 2.2.3 Outdoor Education Almost half a century ago, outdoor education was defined as „education in, about and for the outdoors‟ (Donaldson & Donaldson, 1958). „Education in the outdoors‟ referred to the use of the outdoor environment as a learning source and setting in enriching the formal educational process. „Education about the outdoors‟ referred to outdoor education as a teaching method, where it provides first hand learning experiences through direct interactions between self, society and nature. Finally, „education for the outdoors‟ referred to outdoor education as a medium of environmental responsibility and protection. However, as we move into the latter part of 1980s, Priest (1986) has redefined the term of outdoor education in a wider context. Since then, the definition has become the most popular definition of outdoor education among researchers. Priest has proposed that outdoor education is defined as: 12
“…an experiential process of learning by doing, which takes place primarily through exposure to the out of doors. In outdoor education the emphasis for the subject of learning is placed on relationships, relationships concerning people and natural resources”. Through this definition, Priest highlighted outdoor education as an experiential learning process which occurs either in the outdoors or indoors for the purpose of promoting the lifelong learning process. He also addressed that the focus of subject matter in outdoor education is more on interpersonal and natural resources. However, recently the definition has been widespread and interpreted according to one‟s understanding of the meaning of outdoor education. For instance, Lund (2004) has defined outdoor education as “an experiential method of learning with the use of all senses. It takes place primarily, but not exclusively, through exposure to the natural environment. In outdoor education, the emphasis for the subject of learning is placed on relationships concerning people and natural resources”. Lund‟s (2002) definition has a similarity with Priest‟s (1986) in term of the idea which he highlighted outdoor education does not only occur in a natural environment setting for the purpose of promoting lifelong learning process. Neill (2003) has defined outdoor education as “when small groups of people participate in organized adventurous activities in natural settings and primarily use themselves as the resource for solving problems”. He later proposed another definition which defines outdoor education as “a term that means different things to different people, cultures, and organizations. Common themes include an emphasis on direct experience of the outdoors for personal, social, educational, therapeutic and environmental goals (Neill, 2008). However, in different interpretation of meaning of outdoor education, Hammerman, Hammerman, and Hammerman (2001) proposed outdoor education as a contemporary curriculum development that is sometimes difficult to define. It is a rather vague and nebulous educational concept”, and it has been applied in various ways from a visit to a national museum to whitewater kayaking. Based on this statement, they highlighted outdoor education as a multidisciplinary subject which can be applied in any curriculum area and which is primarily focused upon enhancing learning capabilities through direct outdoor experiences. Based on the above definitions, there is evidence of conceptual differences between researchers. As education in, about and for the outdoors, outdoor education was also defined as; (a) an experiential learning process (Priest, 1986); (b) method of learning (M. Lund, 2004); (c) the resources for problem solving (Neill, 2003; Neill, 2008) and; (d) a method for teaching and learning (Hammerman, Hammerman, & Hammerman, 2001). All these definitions and personal views have made the process of defining outdoor education far more complicated (Hammerman, Hammerman, & Hammerman, 2001). 13
In order to minimise the definitional debates, several researchers have proposed that outdoor education should not be defined in shallow terms because it has evolved and formed lots of new branches such as adventure education, environmental education, adventure based learning, ecology education, and education outside the classroom (Gilbertson, 2006). These researchers thus proposed that outdoor education is best defined in broad terms as it is influenced by current practices and socially constructed and definitions can and should evolve and transform across time, space and culture (Neill, 2008). The above reviews of literature about outdoor recreation and outdoor education underscore a need to understand the relationship of outdoor recreation and outdoor education. 2.2.4 Relationship of Outdoor Recreation to Outdoor Education
Outdoor recreation is often synonymous with outdoor education. Many scholars agreed that both terms are very similar (Priest, 1988). These things proved to be true when Western State College of Colorado, Phipps, and Cash (1991) explained that various terms such as outdoor education, environmental education, wilderness education, experiential education, adventure education, adventure activities, risk activities, outdoor pursuits, outdoor activities, wilderness pursuits, tourism, commercial recreation, and natural resource management have been used to describe a different aspects of outdoor recreation. However, since the focus of this subtopic is to discuss the relationship between outdoor recreations to outdoor education, the following discussion will emphasis on these two terms. Based on the definitions offered, there appears to be a little difference between the two (Martin et al., 2006). According to Dingle (2006) outdoor education began as the product of outdoor recreation. It is believed that factors of enjoyment and positive values when teachers involve in outdoor recreation is the catalyst for development of outdoor education among school students. The goals is to teach students recreation activities, which they might engage for the sake of maintaining healthy, physical active lifestyle (Martin et al., 2006). The fundamental difference lies in the outdoor education is on an educational goal, whereas outdoor recreation places less emphasis on explicit educational goals and a greater emphasis on fun and enjoyment. Outdoor education normally occurs in a structured fashion in schools or higher institutions, whereas outdoor recreation normally occurs in people's own leisure time (Brown, 2007). Distinctions arise primarily when considering the two disciplines in a formal sense or the contexts and ways in each is practised. Outdoor education is often taught in term of schooling. Students go to the same place, a school building, each day for a specific amount of time to study a particular set of subjects. The goals of education are oriented toward the development of competence in these subject areas. Outdoor recreation on the other hand is often taught in 14
terms of non-school and non-work activity that occurs in a wide variety of setting, ranging from community recreation to day care program. The goals of outdoor recreation are more loosely defined because of the participant-centred nature of recreation. The context in which outdoor education and outdoor recreation are practised is the same. Specific goals and objectives may vary depending on the character of particular programmes, but both outdoor education and recreation ultimately aim for growth and development among programmes participants (Martin et al., 2006). Thus, next section will discuss about outdoor education based on philosophical context in more detail. 2.3 Basic Tenet of Outdoor Education
Outdoor education has often been considered to be a strategy to education and studying which can permeate into many curricular topic matters. Whilst outdoor activities are likely to control common views, outdoor education and studying is now seen within the career as both strategy and a topic in its own right illustrating on three incorporated places of outdoor activities, environmental education and personal and social development. The themes of outdoor, adventure and education are all important in the process. An experiential approach to learning is a central tenet of outdoor education and in this context “adventure” is seen as an approach to maximise the learning effect of the experience (Higgins & Loynes, 1997). With the building and development in the field of outdoor education, explanations and concepts began growing. During the 1940s and 50s two different opinions of outdoor education appeared from L.B. Sharp and Julian Smith. Sharp considered in providing direct activities causing a better understanding of the natural environment to achieve education goals. Smith (1955), on the other hand, considered in acquiring skills for the brilliant use in life. The distributed objectives, however, were to assist students in creating a greater knowing of themselves, and the world in which they live through the use of the outdoor (Aspenson, 2010). In the years since 1960s, outdoor education has expanded to encompass adventure education, adventure therapy, experiential education and environmental education. Priest (1986), uses the analogy of a tree (see Figure 2.1) to explain outdoor education's relationship to these other areas. Imagine a large tree known as outdoor education. It has two major branches from the main trunk, each of which disappears into a mass of leaves. One branch is called adventure education; the other branch is called environmental education. The four leaves of this tree are the experiential learning process. The soil, in this case, holds the six senses, plus the three domains of learning. The experiential learning process draws direction from these senses and domains, only to return the processed learning for storage within the roots, as does any other tree (Priest, 1986).
15
Figure 2.1: Outdoor Education Tree (Source: Priest, 1986) 2.3.1 Philosophy
Important commonalities in the philosophies of outdoor education are the purpose of assisting individuals in gaining a greater appreciation of nature and their relationship to it (Aspenson, 2010), and the focus of personal development through interactions with others, and responsible use of the natural environment (Pryor, Carpenter, & Townsend, 2005). Ford (1986) explains the subject matter of outdoor education is comprised of a combination 16
of the interrelationships of all of nature and human beings. It encompasses attitudes for caring, skills for utilizing resources and pursuing leisure activities. She also writes about the philosophy of outdoor education as being based on four premises, one of which relates directly to this study, outdoor education is a continual education experience taught at all levels and pursued throughout life. Priest (1986) takes this a step further, stating that learning in outdoor education is a matter of many relationships: interpersonal, intrapersonal, ecosystemic and ekistic; relationships with and between other people and ourselves, and relationships between people and the environment. Summarizing these two schools of thought, outdoor education is thought to be a lifelong learning experience affecting relationships with others, self and the natural world. Amidst to all the importance of outdoor education, the next topic will discuss the development of outdoor education in Malaysia. 2.4 Development of Outdoor Education in Malaysia
The beginning of outdoor education is said to have an uncertain history where it lies (Neill, 2004). It is believed that outdoor education dates back to man's existence in this world. Socio-cultural history stated that, outdoor education shows a representation of the interaction with nature since human nature changed residence from rural to buildings and homes (Abu Bakar Sidek, 2004). In Malaysia, outdoor education is believed to have started since 1950‟s. However, there is a limited publication confirming the history of the beginning of outdoor education in Malaysia. Therefore, reporting the development of outdoor education from the view of history is a very subjective matter due to limited published materials. The researcher believes that there are a few publications and personal communications that can be a basis for a narrative history. They are: 1. Published journal article by Scholer and Teoh (1980) entitled “Teacher Training in Physical Education in Malaysia” which was published in The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, and 2. Personal interview about history and establishment of outdoor education in Malaysia with a retired senior lecturer and specialist in outdoor education who was formerly attached at Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas (1976-1979), Universiti Putra Malaysia (1979-1999) and Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (1999-2006). Due to limited material, the researcher will combine facts from these two sources and some unpublished articles as a basis to link the development of outdoor education in Malaysia in the era of post-modern. In short, the development of outdoor education in Malaysia is deeply influenced by the establishment of Outward Bound (OB) Lumut, the role of the Ministry of Education through the Division of Teacher Education and Division of School, the establishment of outdoor education programmes funded by the government and private sector and lastly inclusion of outdoor education as a subject in 17
higher institution especially in Malaysian universities and Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia.
2.4.1 The Influence of Outward Bound Lumut, Malaysia
OB programmes have been running for nearly sixty years and currently exist in all continents and thirty-six countries at over forty OB schools around the world. Outdoor education was formally developed in the early 1941 with the formation of OB in Aberdovey, Wales, United Kingdom by Kurt Hahn (Neill, 2004). The idea of Plato has been used by Hans‟s as an approach to education as he put an emphasis on the use of experience in the development of the whole person, and the person‟s ability to serve the community (Martin, 2001). He believed that that experiential education programmes enable young people to fulfil their potential (Stetson, 1996). Until today, OB is still based upon Hahn‟s philosophy, as indicated in their mission statement: “OB is a non-profit educational organisation created to stimulate personal development and generate understanding between people. This is achieved by impelling them out of familiar environments and setting new challenges through safe but demanding adventure experiences, which inspire responsibility, self-reliance, teamwork, confidence and community service” (Outward Bound International, 1999). Nevertheless, in the post-modern Malaysia, outdoor education is believed to yield in 1952. The opening of OB branch in Lumut, Perak, Malaysia which became the oldest centre outside the United Kingdom has influenced the development. From the beginning on 5th June 1955, this centre has sought to design programs that support and develop integration within the Malaysian multi-racial society of Malays, Chinese, Indians, Eurasians and others (Outward Bound Malaysia, 2014). In general, the objective of OB course is to enhance personal development, interpersonal and environmental awareness, and refine philosophy and values (Bacon, 1983). 2.4.2 The Influence of Governments and Private Sector’s Outdoor Education Programmes
The Malaysian government and private sector also contribute to the growth of outdoor education. In order to get the benefit of outdoor education programs, various recreational programs were undertaken by the government and the private sector. The most popular programme run by the government is Program Latihan Khidmat Negara (PLKN). Meanwhile, for the private sector, Wilderness Malaysia is a well-known outdoor education company managed by Halim Mazmin business group. Both of these sectors have played important roles in developing outdoor education in Malaysia. 18
PLKN is designed for Malaysian youth (18 years old) with the notion of national service. It was introduced in 2004 which requires Malaysian youth to undergo the programme for three months and implements four main modules. They are; (1) physical, (2) nation building, (3) social and personal development and (4) community service. The main focus of this programme is to generate cohesive citizens, build up character, and produce young generation that is resilient, healthy and confident. So far in 2014, there are 81 PLKN centres all over Malaysia which are equipped with standard outdoor education facilities and execute standard modules. On the other hand, Wilderness Malaysia, the most popular commercially funded outdoor education centre in Malaysia has started the operation in 2002. The main focus of this company is to provide a better opportunity for outdoor education programme to all Malaysians. Their main clients are Malaysian school students and operate their programme in Tuba Island, Langkawi. 2.4.3 Outdoor Education in Malaysian Educational System
The development of outdoor education in the Malaysian educational system is said to have been influenced by the Razak Report 1956. The Razak Report was written in 1956 by Malaysia‟s former prime minister Tun Abdul Razak. It is an effort to form the Federation of Malaya which laid the foundation for the development of the education system to foster unity through the National Education System. The report has become a catalyst for the growth of outdoor education in the Malaysian educational system (Hussin & Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1993). The objectives of the report are to: 1. Strengthen unity among the Malays, Chinese and Indians as a community of nations in Malaya, 2. Expanding the education system so that the gap between the races could be reduced, 3. Provide an adequate educational facilities to create a disciplined, welltrained, liberal and progressive society, 4. Create a tolerant society, disciplined, trained, liberal and progressive. As a result, the Razak Report 1956 was used as a basis to design the National Education Policy, as stated in the Education Act 1961 (Ministry of Education, 1956). The achievement of national unity through education has become a tool of social system (Ishak, 2005; Rahimah, 1998). Starting from that, in 1961 the Ministry of Education has introduced outdoor education as an informal syllabus for co-curricular activities in Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas (MPIK-now, known as Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia, Ilmu Khas Campus) as a medium to unite students. Since then, outdoor education is believed to carried out in MPIK, the college for trainee teachers for physical education program (Abu Bakar Sidek, 2004). The development of outdoor education continues when in 1979, outdoor education 19
had been offered in Universiti Putra Malaysia as an academic subject to its Physical Education students. Then, in 1990‟s it was followed by Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Outdoor education was informally introduced into the Malaysian schooling system through the establishment of Ministry of Education (MOE) co-curricular centres in 1991. These centres have been established all over Malaysia and are fully equipped with the latest outdoor facilities and managed by certified instructors graduated from the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia, UPM, UPSI, UiTM and UKM. The main focus of these centres is to implement the planned activities based on the Philosophy of Education to complete the process of teaching and learning in the classroom to real learning experience through activities as well as priority of improving cohesion, knowledge, skills, discipline, self confidence that lead to individual excellence (Ministry of Education, 1999). Outdoor education then was formally introduced in Malaysia schooling system when it was presented in 1995 as a part of subtopic in Physical Education curriculum. The main objective of the topic is to promote a healthy life style among Malaysian students through outdoor education activities such as camping, orienteering and knotting (Curriculum Development Centre, 2002). 2.4.4 Outdoor Education in the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia
The development of outdoor education in Malaysian educational system is said to begin in 1960‟s with the inclusion of outdoor education as an informal syllabus for co-curricular activities in Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas (MPIK-now, known as Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia, Ilmu Khas Campus). Since then, outdoor education is believed to carried out in MPIK, the college for trainee teachers for physical education program (Abu Bakar Sidek, 2004). On the other hand, the establishment of National Educational Philosophy in 1988 with the aim to develop students who are well-balanced in terms of physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual and social development has influenced the growth of outdoor education in Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. The main focus of the programme is to gain personal and social development. (Aspenson, 2010; Eys et al., 2008; Scholer & Teoh, 1980). During this one-year course, students of Physical Education Special Course were required to participate in several outdoor education camps conducted in remote area setting. Outdoor activities such as kayaking, trekking, orienteering, abseiling and survival are among the activities conducted in the programmes. Outdoor education continues to grow and officially has been incorporated as part of the curriculum in physical education course offered in 1990‟s. Arising from there, outdoor education is gradually introduced in Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia by offering a Diploma in Physical Education 1996. Meanwhile in 2005, Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia has been granted 20
permission form the Ministry of Education to produce Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education and outdoor education serves as a compulsory core subjects that should be taken by the teacher trainees. Outdoor education is a compulsory subject for the Department of Physical Education and Health. It is a three-credit subject which is compulsory for third semester Physical Education students. The subject is divided into three parts; (1) weekly theoretical class, (2) weekly practical session and (3) participation in outdoor education camping. Outdoor education camping in the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia is normally conducted in remote setting such as the mountain region or islands. The outcome of the programme is expected to increase students‟ personal and social development, management skill, and outdoor pursuit skills. Normally, weekly theoretical class covers outdoor education topics, such as philosophy, history, leadership, management strategies and current issues in outdoor education. Meanwhile, weekly practical class exposes students to various outdoor pursuit skills ranging from basic camping skill to land and water based adventure activities such as kayaking, orienteering, abseiling, survival and trekking. By the end of the semester, the teacher trainees will have participated a six-days in outdoor education camping. Traditional base camp approach is used where the students sleep in tents and prepare their own meals. During the camp, the students will participate in several outdoor pursuit expeditions such as kayaking, trekking, boating, orienteering and abseiling which are done on a daily rotation basis. At night, they will be geared for a series of group discussions, games and group presentations. These activities are conducted to reinforce their outdoor education camp learning experience. This camping programme emphasized positive affective values and promotes behavioural change with adventure activities as a medium of learning. 2.5 The Focus of Outdoor Education
Gilbertson, Bates, McLaughlin, and Ewert (2006), have proposed that outdoor education should be comprised of a blend of three foci: (1) social and personal development; (2) outdoor pursuits and; (3) environmental education or studies. These three foci are presented in Figure 2.2.
21
Personal and social development
Outdoor pursuits and adventure education
Environmental education and studies
Figure 2. 2: Outdoor Education Focus Model (Source: Gilbertson, 2006)
Personal and social development focus concentrates on enhancing the holistic potential of human beings and group. It also teaches the notion of responsibility, respecting others, self-confidence and the sense of success. The aim of this focus is to promote holistic individual development through affective, behavioural and cognitive domains. Adventure based learning, problem solving, and team-building activities are among the popular activities in this focus (Warren, Sakofs, & Hunt, 1995). An outdoor pursuit or adventure education focus presents a combination of risk, challenges and outdoor skills used to generate active learning experiences among students. Kurt Hahn (1886 - 1974), the founder of the Outward Bound (OB) movement, had promoted this idea. He proposed that a combination of risk, fun, and the sense of success and failure could generate active participation, promote self-awareness and enhance learning experiences (Gilbertson, 2006). All of these criteria then motivate the students to do their best to succeed, while at the same time enhancing their learning experiences. Rock climbing, kayaking, high ropes challenges and sailing are among the activities (Bunting, 2006). 22
Through an environmental education focus, outdoor education is seen as a medium of environmental attitude enhancement. The notion of environmental education focus is to give awareness and show the importance of natural environment. It is proposed that through this focus, outdoor education activities might develop and enhance human-nature relationships, leading to ecocentric environmental worldviews, and supporting cooperation to care for the environment (Thomas & Thomas, 2000). In discussing the issue on the effect of outdoor education toward group cohesion, the researcher will highlight more on personal and social development focus, since this focus is interrelated to the present study. 2.6 Outdoor Education Learning Process
Based on the literature in the previous section, it is showed that outdoor education was very unique and rich in symbols, metaphors, feeling and typical behaviour pattern (Panga & Grecia-de Vera, 2010). Thus, these kind of unique criteria necessitate an outstanding learning process in order to maximise personal and social development which is one of the primary goals of outdoor education. To accomplish this holistic learning circumstance, most outdoor educators adopt a very unique learning approach which is based on the philosophy of learning as a lifelong process combined with hands on experience that occurs through social interaction and communication (Marjan, Arsalan, & Ashkan, 2013). Thus, next section discusses on learning theory and model involved in outdoor education learning process. 2.6.1 Theory and Model of Learning
There are several theory and model of learning that help clarify the process that a participant in outdoor education program goes through. The first and most commonly referred to model is David Kolb‟s model of experiential education, which was originally adapted from Dewey‟s 1938 model of experiential learning (Belton, 2010; Priest & Gass, 2005). The theory is considered as a developmental learning theory when it fulfils the following characteristics: (a) a process; (b) a means of changes in knowledge, behaviours, and attitudes; and (c) something resultant from individual experience (Alan, 2006). Therefore, a developmental learning theory such as ELT provides a useful theoretical platform to understand how individuals describe and share their knowledge and experiences generated from the learning process (Passarelli & Kolb, 2011). Most of the theorists suggest that in order for learning to occur, ideas cannot be separated from experience as they must be associated to the learner‟s lives (Beaudin & Quick, 1995; Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985). 23
The importance of knowledge and experience sharing in the process of learning has been acknowledged by theorists, Lewin, Dewey and Piaget (Brown, 2007). The engagement in sharing process among participants will allow participants to create relationships and practice a new identity in a safe and supportive environment (Mead, Hilton, & Curtis, 2001). The Experiential Learning Model (ELM) developed by David Kolb also highlights adult learner into account. Based on the foundation laid by Lewin, Dewey, and Piaget, Kolb emphasizes that there is a critical link between adult learning and socialization. He asserts that learning in informal setting often involves with groups of other learners (Page, 2009). The first and most commonly referred model is David Kolb‟s model of experiential education, which was originally adapted from Dewey‟s 1938 model of experiential learning (Priest & Gass, 2005) According to Kolb (1984), he emphasizes that Experiential Learning as a process of building a knowledge through experience. Based on Kolb‟s model it refers to the experience as a virtuous circle, where participants start and finish with a concrete experience. These experiences can take shape in many forms like an element in outdoor education camp (Soares, 2010). Individuals move through the learning cycle beginning with an affective orientation to the environment (concrete experience), continuing on to a perceptual orientation (reflective observation), followed by a symbolic orientation (abstract conceptualization) and behavioural application (active experimentation). Then they move on to new experiences (concrete experience), repeating the cycle. The cycle continues to repeat or spiral (Kolb, 1984). These four stages occur in sequence in a cycle that may be entered into from any point but must stay in the correct sequential order and are repeated in a spiral of cycles. Kolb‟s Experiential Learning circle is shown in Figure 2.3.
24
Figure 2. 3: Kolb's Experiential Learning Model (Source: Kolb, 1984)
However, there are disadvantages and advantages of using this theory, but the advantages go above the disadvantages. Two disadvantages of this instructional method are time and money. In order to develop a purposeful and differentiated lesson, the teacher needs time to develop the different elements. This requires the teacher to be very clear about their goals for the lesson and be prepared for the different outcomes. This takes careful planning, which takes time. In addition, experiential method takes time to perform in the classroom. In order to make students to learn a complex process, then the teacher should be prepared to dedicate the needed time to the lesson. If a teacher does not plan it well, then they can get behind because the lesson will last longer than expected. Also, money can be a disadvantage of experiential learning because it costs money to expose students to constant hands on learning. Another model important to outdoor education learning process is the Outward Bound Educational Process Model. OB Educational Process Model or also known as Walsh and Golins Model has been developed by Walsh and Golins (Walsh & Golins, 1976) which was based on Experiential Learning Theory (Dewey, 1938). This model has been particularly important in the development of an understanding of the outdoor education process (McKenzie, 2003) and provide the theoretical basis for most such programmes (Ewert & McAvoy, 2000). Walsh and Golins (1976), suggested that a series of physical activities and group problem solving tasks should be experienced by the participant. The tasks need to be introduced gradually through a real experience. Meanwhile, Martin, (2003) concluded, problem solving tasks with a holistic approach should involve individual‟s mental, emotional and physical resources. Transfer of learning to future experiences will take place due to „adaptive dissonance‟ as a result of two different and conflicting thought.
25
is placed into A
learner (who is motivate and ready)
and into
then given a
Prescribed physical environments
Prescribed social environments
(that are contrasting and novel, stimulating, straightforward, and neutral or impartial)
(of small group social units with 7-15 people and with collective group consciousness, objectivity, autonomy, individuality, conflict resolution, trust support and reciprocity)
creating a
leading to
Characteristic set of problem-solving task
(that utilizes all learning domains and are prescriptive or organized; incremental, progressive, or sequential; concrete or recognizable; manageable, solvable or worthwhile; and holistic and complementary)
leading to
State of adaptive dissonance
Mastery of competenc e
(with possible adaptation through succumbing, coping, thriving, and the like)
(which is used to regain a state of equilibrium and overcome the dissonance)
Reorganization of the meaning and direction of the experience
The learner continues to be oriented toward living and learning
(measuring in term of increased self-awareness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, belonginess, cohesion and so on; and direction in terms of repeated modelling and problem solving behaviours )
Figure 2. 4: Outward Bound Educational Process Model (Source: Walsh & Golins, 1976) According to the model (Figure 2.4), seven elements, plus “transfer”, were identifiable and considered to be replicable by other programmes. The model 26
suggest that, the “learner is placed in a unique physical environment and into a unique social environment, then given a characteristic set of problem-solving tasks and creating a state of adaptive dissonance to which the learner adapts by gaining mastery, which then reorganises the meaning and direction of the learner‟s life experience” (Walsh & Golins, 1976). The Outward Bound Educational Process Model (Walsh & Golins, 1976) has attracted considerable discussion (e.g., Gager, 1978; Martin, 2003; McKenzie, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Nold, 1978; Sibthorp, 2003). In short, the unique physical setting from which the learner, as part of a unique social setting (the group), goes through a series of physical and mental challenges and is subjected to feedback from the instructor/leader and/or other individuals in the groups, in addition to personal reflection through outdoor education experience may provide a mechanism for change. As a consequence, the learner may experience a set of values, behaviours, and attitudes that are different from before the outdoor education experience (Ewert & McAvoy, 2000). The discussed theory and model of learning help identify participant behaviours in outdoor education setting. They are crucial to the understanding of experiential education and more specifically outdoor education camping. 2.7 Group Cohesion
Researchers have defined cohesion in a variety of ways. Cohesion, which is used synonymously in the media with terms such as teamwork, team unity, closeness, and camaraderie, has been used extensively (Carron, Eys, & Burke, 2007). The term „group cohesion‟ has also been used to indicate higher level of interpersonal acceptance, mutual support and trust among group members (Bisson, 1997; Soares, 2010). On the other hand, the willingness of member to remain in a group also can be reflected as group cohesion (Stroud, 2006). Since 1950, several definitions of group cohesion have been proposed (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Rubin et al. (2009) defined group cohesion as a “collection of interacting individuals who have some degree of reciprocal influence over one another”. In earlier definition Festinger, Schacter, and Back (1950, cited in Murphy, 2001) viewed cohesion as, “the total field of forces which act upon members to remain in the group”. However, based on these definitions, it can be simplified that cohesion mainly addresses how a team handles outside pressures and still pursues its goals (Murphy, 2001). As suggested by Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer (1998) cohesion appear to be most comprehensive. Specifically, Carron and colleagues defined cohesion as "a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and for the satisfaction of members‟ affective needs”. Under this definition, group cohesion is built through common goals and objectives (Albert, 2002). Thus, it 27
is not surprising that when groups have been the focus of study, cohesion has been an important topic in a variety of disciplines including sociology, social psychology, counselling psychology, military psychology, organizational psychology, educational psychology, and sports psychology (Carron & Brawley, 2000). It is found that group with higher level of empathy, acceptance, self-disclosure, and trust among group members can be considered as highly cohesive group (Stroud, 2006). Cohesion is dynamic, which cohesion is not permanent and influence by intensity throughout the process of group formation, development, maintenance, and dissolution. Meanwhile, another basis of cohesion is instrumental. Based on this, the purpose of the group is being an important factor to force group to stick together. Finally, the last basis is affective dimension. The affective dimension is social bonding that binds the group from breaking up. Thus, if affective dimension in certain group is loose, inconsistency in group climate will exist and may break up the group (Carron et al., 2007). 2.8 Sequencing of Activity in Outdoor Education
The order in which people learn new subject matter is very important. In very common teaching style, most teachers and educational curricula begin with the instruction of basic learning and then slowly move to more complex information (Hergenhahn & Olson 1997). However, in outdoor education program, sequencing has been defined as the act of “paying attention to the order of activities so that the order is appropriate to the needs of the group” (Schoel et al., 1988). Based on the literature, sequencing of outdoor education activity is considered as one of the most important programming components in outdoor education (Anderson & Frison, 1992; Priest, 2000; Rohnke & Butler, 1995; Schoel et al., 1988; Tuckman, 1965). A proper arrangement of sequencing in outdoor education activity is believed to influence the outcomes as it was blended together with the uniqueness of each adventure activity (Bisson, 1999). Many researchers studied the influence of sequence on group cohesion. Most of them agreed that sequencing is very dynamic in which a sequence prepared for a particular group might not work for another group (Schoel et al., 1988). According to Bisson (1999), sequence can exist in either linear model (from general to specific) or in a circular model (from general to specific and back to general) in order to cater the intrinsic part of human learning and development. Moreover, physical educators agreed that, teaching for physical skills should begin with the simplest skill and gradually move to difficult skills when the students achieved have mastery (Siedentop, 1998). 2.8.1 Sequencing Model
28
Even though the literatures proposed that there is no specific set of order for sequencing that is compulsory to be followed by outdoor educators, several different models have been recommended to be used as a guide during implementation of outdoor education programme. For instance Sequential Process (Roland & Havens, 1983), Experiential Challenge Program (Roland, Summers, Friedman, Barton, & McCarthy, 1987), Activity Process Model (Roland, Keene, Dubois, & Lentini, 1987b), Challenge Education Sequence (Robb & Ewert, 1987), Trust Fall And Spotting Exercise Sequence (Rohnke, 1989), Project Adventure sequence (Schoel et al., 1988), the Corporate Adventure Training sequence (Priest, Attarian, & Schubert, 1993) and The Hypothetic Ally Correct Sequence (Bisson, 1997). In overall, although they were found different in each phase and designed for dissimilar populations, most of these models showed resemblances in their progression. 2.8.2 Sequencing and Group Cohesion
Sequencing has proven effective in contributing to the development of group cohesion. Research conducted by Priest (1998a) on 200 employees of a major corporation found that all eight subgroup improved their group cohesion as a result of 10 weeks Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) programme. Using a series of variations on the Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) sequence, Priest designed a study that tested eight different sequences. Based on the study, Priest found that group that participated with group oriented activities such as group initiative, socialisation, and low rope course with spotting increased their group cohesion score immediately as compared to group that started with individually oriented activities that underwent a slight decline before it increased. Another study conducted by Bisson (1997), who studied the impact of the order of activities on group cohesion. In this study, Bisson divided elementary school students into three groups; hypothetically correct sequence (n=25), altered sequence (n=28) and a control group (n=29). Based on the finding, it was found that the hypothetically correct sequence was more significant than the altered sequence. In conclusion, the literatures revealed that in sequencing of activity, group oriented activity should occur before individual activity and found that it influenced personal and social development (Bisson, 1997; Priest, 1998a). 2.9 Theoretical Foundation
Due to the broad spectrum of ages and programmes that fit within the limitation of outdoor education, there are several theories involving cognition and affective value change, as well as social psychology theories that could be applied with regard to group cohesion in outdoor education research. Previous studies regarding theories of cohesion among groups provided an important 29
framework for exploring new directions of research pertaining to group cohesion. The theoretical rationale for this study was based on propositions taken from Carron‟s Group Cohesion Model (CGCM) as a foundation to examine the highlighted issues. This model is conceptually based on the group dynamics literature and is developed through the study of cohesion exhibited in sports teams. In this model, cohesion comprises both individual and group factors and these factors of cohesion manifest as task and social components. The rationales of using this multidimensional model as a theoretical foundation are based on a few justifications. Firstly, the researcher found that unidimensional (one factor) approach is view as failed to reflect the true nature of construct which claimed by previous literatures as loses the groupness (McLeod & Treuer, 2013). Otherwise, group cohesion is noticed by the literature as comprises multiple factors (Sánchez & Yurrebaso, 2009). Moreover, multidimensional model of group cohesion by Carron is treated as the only multidimensional model of cohesion that has received some endorsement by other researchers (e.g. Gundersen, 2013; Halbrook, Blom, Hurley, Bell, & Holden, 2012; Heuze, Raimbault, & Fontayne, 2006). Chang and Bordia, (2006) recommend that Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley's (1985) multidimensional model was a good starting point for cohesion researchers to begin research using a common definition and measurement. Secondly, the highlighted issue in this study involved task and social cohesion which are the main components in the selected model. State-Davey (2009) proposed that the work of Carron et al.(1985) offered a promising future to cohesion research because the task-social and individual-group dimensions are important to understand cohesion in many types of groups. Although the model was designed for sports related studies, the researcher found that the model was accepted with potentially wide applicability to non-sports related group cohesion research (Dion & Evans, 1992). Furthermore, the model has proven to be applicable in outdoor education based research (e.g., Boyle, 2002; Jaffry, Mazuki, & Md Amin, 2012; Jenkins & Alderman, 2011; Malcarne, 2012; Mazuki, Azlizam, Siti Suriawati, & Abdullah, 2015; McAvoy et al., 1996; Muhammad Norazizuddin, 2013; Murphy, 2001; Soares, 2010). Thirdly, focus of the study is on group cohesion which not involving any group development process. It is also important to understand the difference between group development and group cohesion due to the often exchangeable use of the two words. As both terms have different meaning Forsyth (2009), considered group cohesion as the study of the behaviour of groups, meanwhile, group development is the design of growth and change that occur in groups. Finally, this model are utilised as it is easy to interpret, very significant with research objectives and proven effective in examining the phenomenon of group cohesion in outdoor education program. Thus, next section will discuss utilised model as it was used as a foundation for this research. 30
2.9.1 Carron’s Group Cohesion Model Carron‟s Group Cohesion Model has been developed by Carron (1982), is evolved from three major assumptions. The first assumption is established from research on social cognitions which they believe that the perception of individual group members can be used in order to assess the group (Bandura, 1986; Kenny & Lavoie, 1985; Levine & Moreland, 1991; Schlenker, 1975, cited in Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 2002). Theoreticians in the group dynamic literature has emphasised the need to distinguish between group and individuals (Cattell, 1948; Vab Bergen & Koekebakker, 1959; Zander, 1971 cited in Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002). Therefore, based on the foundation, Carron (1982) has concluded that, the second assumption is the social cognitions that each individual in the group hold about the cohesiveness of the group are related to the group as a totality and to the manner in which the group satisfies personal needs and objectives (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002). Meanwhile, another stem that contributed to the third assumption is that theoretician in group cohesions literature also have highlighted the importance to differentiate between the task oriented and socially oriented concerns of group and their members. Thus, Carron‟s third assumption is that there are two fundamental focuses to a group member‟s perception which are task orientation and social orientation represent motivation toward group objectives and motivation toward maintaining social relationship (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002). Based on the three assumptions, Carron (1982) advocated a model of factors that were thought to influence perception of cohesion. The factors were classified as group environment factors, personal factors, leadership factors and group factors. In a recent development, Carron, Hausenblas, and Eys (2005) have outlined a linear model comprised of inputs, throughputs and outputs (see Figure 2.5).
Personal
Leadership
Group Environment
Individual Outcomes Group Structure
Group Cohesion
Team
31
Group Process
Team Outcomes
THROUGHPUTS
OUTPUTS
INPUTS
Figure 2. 5: Group Cohesion Model (Source: Carron, 1982)
Inputs include personal attributes (e.g. age, personality), leadership (coachathletes relationship), team (e.g. group size, group component) and the nature of the group environment (e.g. group climate). The inputs are believed to influence the throughputs which are comprised of group structure (e.g. status, role, and norms), group cohesion and group processes (e.g. goal, interaction and communication). Finally, the throughputs lead to the outputs which are categorised into either individual or team outcomes (Carron et al., 2005). Based on the above discussed, this study has adapted the model into research conceptual framework to facilitate the current study. 2.10 Research Conceptual Framework
In examining the effect of outdoor education camp toward group cohesion among selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia students, the current study has adapted the Carron‟s Group Cohesion Model (CGCM) to be used as a foundation for the research conceptual framework. This model has been chosen as it has been found to be very useful as conceptual framework in predicting a wide range of group cohesion outcomes in outdoor education (Boyle, 2002; Kilty, 2000; Malcarne, 2012; Mazuki et al., 2015; Sibthorp, 2003; Walsh & Golins, 1976). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that CGCM will provide a very good foundation to facilitate the current study. Carron‟s Group Cohesion Model developed by Carron et al., (1985) is found more systematic in studying group cohesion in outdoor education setting (Boyle, 2002). Although it is designed for sports related studies, the researcher found that the model as having promise to serve as a conceptual and methodological approach with potentially wide applicability to non-sports related group cohesion research (Dion & Evans, 1992). The model has proven to be applicable in outdoor education based research (e.g., Boyle, 2002; Jaffry et al., 2012; Jenkins & Alderman, 2011; Malcarne, 2012; McAvoy et al., 1996; Muhammad Norazizuddin, 2013; Murphy, 2001; Soares, 2010).
32
Independent Variables
\
Part icip atio n in Out doo r Edu cati on
Environmental Factors - Camp Location Team Factors - Campus
Dependent Variables
Cohesion - ATG-T - ATG-S - GI-T - GI-S
Personal Factors - Gender - Place of residence - Previous experience
Group Outcomes
Individual Outcomes
Figure 2. 6: Research Conceptual Framework (Adapted from Carron, 1982) Group cohesion is the element that moulds a collection of individuals into a group (Hall, 2007). Therefore, according to research conceptual framework (Figure 2.6), there are basic notions with certain factors that lead to or determine group cohesion, and certain consequences associated with having or not having group cohesion (Cox, 2007). 33
The framework proposed incorporates some significant components of that developed by CGCM. Based on the CGCM, the researcher has made a few modifications to represent the highlighted issues. However, it is important to note that, this study only focuses on the effect of outdoor education camps on teacher trainees‟ group cohesion in the selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. Thus, the researcher has decided only two antecedents from the CGCM is used which considered as socio-demographic variables (1) personal factors and (2) team factors. Leadership, group environmental factor, group structure and group process as suggested by Carron is ignored as it is beyond the scope of the current study. Furthermore, research on leadership in cohesion is very common and has proven significant as well as correlate in improving cohesion by many researchers (Albert, 2002; Callow & Smith, 2009; Doherty, 1995; Eys et al., 2008; Mohd Taib & Norlena, 2010, 2013; Mohsen, Reza, Mehrdad, Ali, & Mir, 2012; Rahim & Misagh, 2009). Meanwhile, the environment factor as suggested by Carron CGCM does not match with the highlighted issue. It referred to the social and physical characteristics of the group environment and included aspects such as the nature of the task (Carron et al., 1985). However, as this study seek to unfold the influence of camp location on group cohesion, the researcher has considered to include suggestion from McAvoy et al., (1996) and Breunig et al., (2007) to study the influence of environmental factor on group cohesion. McAvoy et al., (1996) defined environmental factor as the influence of outside force have on group cohesion. To support, Priest and Gass (2005) described environmental factors as one of five that can have a large impact on how the group will relate and respond to the tasks. Through this factor, the literatures recommend to examine the influence of camp location on group cohesion. Camp location is considered as outside force that might influence group cohesion but not much study examines this factor (McKenzie, 2000b; Priest & Gass, 2005). In the conceptual framework described above, it is determined by independent variables and dependent variable. Independent variable consisted of participation of teacher trainees in outdoor education camp with selected sociodemographic variable, which is categorised into three categories (1) environmental factors, (2) personal factors and (3) team factors. Meanwhile, dependent variables comprised of group outcomes and individual outcomes of cohesion. The conceptual framework of the study hypothesizes that teacher trainees who participated in outdoor education camp will affect with stronger group cohesion. This study also examines the influence of socio demographic variables on group cohesion. Therefore, the following section will highlight the independent and dependent variables that relate to the current study.
34
2.10.1 Independent Variable
Independent variable of this study is the involvement of teacher trainee with selected socio-demographic variable as followed: Socio-demographic Variables The three components of the socio-demographic variables: (1) environmental factors; (2) personal factors; and (3) group factors are considered as sociodemographic variables. The current study only focuses on these factors as they are in line with the purpose of the study. 1) Environmental Factors The environmental dimension concern the influence of outside forces on group cohesion (McAvoy et al., 1996). Therefore, McAvoy et al., (1996) in their research, extended that environmental dimension to include the outdoor environment (wilderness, camp location, etc.) and all of its various forces, programmes components, territoriality, spatial behaviour, environmental stress, time demand, and fear or anxiety. On the other hand, McKenzie (2000a), notes that the effects of the environmental factor on the achievement of learning outcomes have not been studied. This would include the effect of a wilderness and non-wilderness environment on outcomes. To support, Gersick (1988) pointed out that, the variable of the environment exists to the list of factors affecting a group. He emphasised the effect that the connection between a group and its environment presented. When evaluating groups and environmental factors, Ancona (1999) argued that “group behaviour should be viewed as a series of escalating cycles of interaction between groups and their environments”. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the researcher only focuses on one sub variable that is camp location. 2) Personal Factors Personal factors refer to the individual characteristics of group members such as individual ability, personality, and interpersonal compatibility (Carron et al., 1985). It may relate to how personal characteristics bring a group to influence group cohesion (McAvoy et al., 1996). Specifically, the dimension shares personal factor (e.g., past experience, age, social skill etc.) that might diverse among group members (Hall, 2007). For the purpose of the study, the researcher has delimited to examine the influence of age, gender, place of residence and previous experience on group cohesion. Therefore, the next literature will discuss more on the influence of personal factors (gender, place of residence and previous experience) on group cohesion. a) Gender
35
The difference between the way in which men and women experience the outdoor education is a topic that has generated significant discussion over the past fifty years from scholars in a number of fields, including historians, feminists, male rights activists, psychologists, and educators (Leupp, 2007). Bjerke, Thrane, and Kleiven (2006) in their researches found that there is a weak tendency for women to be more environmentally concerned than men. In contrast, Hattie, et al., (1997) found no difference in the overall size of outcomes for males and females. While it is recognized that boys may benefit more from physical challenges and girls more from emotional exploration. Hattie maintains that while programmes effect genders differently, they do so equally. Research by Alp, Ertepinar, Tekkaya, and Yilmaz (2006) found that the effect of gender on attitudes toward the environment was found to be statistically significant in favour of girls. Zelezny, Chua and Aldrich‟s (2000, cited in Digby, 2010) review of a decade of researches on gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviours found that women report stronger environmental attitudes and behaviours than men. The difference between the way in which men and women experience the wilderness is a topic that has generated significant discussion over the past fifty years. Despite this interest, research on gender and outdoor education remains inconclusive. Quantitative studies that focus on the differences in the experiences of boys and girls, and qualitative studies, for the most part, are designed to document the positive outcomes on girls (Hunter, Hatch, & Johnson, 2004; Leupp, 2007). b) Place of Residence A recent study carried out by Klassen, (2010) found that, rural youths showed more significant relationships with nature due to extra opportunity with nature. However, for the urban youth, he noted that they have similar concerns for the outdoor but with slightly less than the rural youth. It is supported by Shepard and Speelmans‟s study (1986) which measured the effect of participating in an outdoor education programmes at resident 4-H camps in Ohio on children aged 9 to 14. Their study recommended that, campers from urban areas receive an initial period of acclimation to the natural environment before environmental concepts are introduced due to their relatively limited exposure to the natural environment on a regular basis. Several studies have concluded that residence in an urban area is generally associated with greater environmentalism (Buttel, 1992; Mohai, 1992). However, McMillan, Hoban, Clifford, and Brant, (1997) found that urban individual‟s awareness is more significant than the rural individual. They addressed that, the possible explanation of the situation is that urban individual often live in a more polluted environment and this accelerate awareness of the environment. c) Previous Experience in Outdoor Recreation Most of past researches would suggest that there exist a positive relationship with what individuals did previously in their lives with what they interpreted or do later in their lives (Place, 2004). The notion of the influence of previous 36
experience is supported by Lewis (2009) which addressed that previous outdoor experiences are important for the development of positive outcomes. Conrad and Helin (1982, cited in Sibthorp, 2003) stated that the development of positive outdoor education experience is based on the individual perceptions of their own experiences. Haluza-Delay (2001) has challenged the idea and addressed that one-time experiences are usually not as important as periodic exposure during the early years of life. Ewert et al., (2005) noted that, life experience seem to be the most important factor to influence attitudes change rather than other specific programmes specially designed for attitude change. Villacorta, Koestner, and Lekes, (2003) mentioned that, the tendency of individuals to transfer their new attitudes is believed to be due to several factors. Lekes found that the factors are depending on (a) interest of parent about the outdoors (b) influence of peers (c) individual concern and aspiration of the outdoors. It was supported by Corcoran (1999), who found that the most important influence was early experiences in the outdoors, and the greatest human influence was the family.
3) Team Factors Team factors refer to the team composition (Herre, 2010) for instance, team size, and team organization (Carron et al., 1985; McGrath, 1964). Team composition can be defined as the aspect of a team formed by the configuration of team member characteristics. It is considered to have an influential effect on group cohesion (Bell, 2007). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the current research will examine the influence of campuses location on group cohesion. With references to the campus geographical location, Persson (2014), addressed that campus location can influence student social cohesion. The other research conducted by Maramba and Museus (2013), support the idea and found that it positively associated with group cohesion. Meanwhile, with regards to team size, Moreland, Levine and Wingert (1996), have identified that teams with less than 10 members can be considered as small group. Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and Gilson (2008) found that team with smaller group members can generate more cohesion, less conflict and better communication. The idea is supported by Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron (1990), which mentioned cohesion is greater in smaller groups. 2.10.2 Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in this study is group cohesion. Carron and Brawley (2000) suggested that group cohesion consists of attraction to the group (ATG) and group integration (GI). ATG concerns an individual's personal involvement with a group, and GI involves an individual's overall perception of group solidarity. Carron et al. also posit that ATG and GI consist of "social" and "task" 37
facets. Thus in more detail, the dependent variables of this study are ATG-T, ATG-S, GI-T and GI-S (Carron et al.,1985). 2.11 Summary of Previous Study
Based on the previous study, it shows that outdoor education has proven effective and gives positive effect on group cohesion (Boyle, 2002). Boyle (2002; Garst, Scheider, & Baker, 2001) study the effect of adventure-based training intervention on the group cohesion and psychological skills development of elite netball players, he found that an adventure based training intervention has positive effect on athletes ability to learn new team and psychological skills. In addition, findings indicated that individual and team performance might have been enhanced because of skill learnt during the intervention. On the other hand, Jean-Philippe, Nicolas, and Paul (2006) examined mediating effects in the relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy and performance in professional basketball teams. They revealed positive relationships among the three dimensions of cohesion (individual attractions to the group-task, group integration-task, group integration-social) and collective efficacy. These findings suggest that in professional basketball teams, staff members should look after athletes who perform at a lower or below their usual level because their performances might lead them into a downward cohesion. Urtel (2003) in his study found that, early involvement in outdoor education and gender have positive relation to a positive attitude. This is supported by Hattie et al., (1997) as they reported that the factors that influence results are demographic factors (period of camp, gender, type of participant, place of activity and age). Sekine (1994, cited in Henderson, 2001) reported that children‟s locus of control showed significant gain when he studied group cohesion changes of school children at a weeklong camping. Meanwhile, a study conducted by Larson (2007), on adolescent aged from 9 to 17 years with behavioural problem found that there is a significant difference in self-concept between experimental and control group. A number of studies have suggested that team building exercises increase cohesion (Carron & Spink, 1993; Smith & Smoll, 1996). For example, Carron and Spink (1993) investigated the effect of team building on cohesion in a university aerobics class and revealed that the team building has affected the experimental group with a significantly higher individual satisfaction than the control group. However, based on the study carried out by Thapa (2010) in determining relationship of attitude-behaviour and the effect of outdoor recreation activity found that attitude showed stronger direct relationship with behaviour. Meanwhile, participation in activity had no influence on attitudebehaviour.
38
2.12 Chapter Summary
This chapter has reviewed literature in various areas in an effort to place the current study in a context of existing literatures. These literatures helped ground my study in the literature as well as revealed the need to investigate the impact of outdoor education on group cohesion. In short, based on the analysis of previous studies, the researcher can conclude that there still issues concerning the impact of outdoor education camp towards group cohesion. While many researchers found significant results in enhancing group cohesion, some studies suggest contrarily. In addition, if viewed from the study of outdoor education camp on group cohesion, there are lacks of supporting pertaining Malaysian studies. In fact, to date, there are still no long-term or delayed studies that examine the extent of retention rates of group cohesion as a result of outdoor education camp (Md Amin et al., 2011).
39
CHAPTER 3
DESIGN, INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURE
3.1 Introduction
This study involved an investigation of the effect of outdoor education camp on the group cohesion among selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia students. Since it was inconclusive finding about the effect on group cohesion, the first step in the research was to confirm the effect of outdoor education on group cohesion in short-term and delayed effect. In addition, the study also sought to investigate the influence of socio-demographic factors and sequence of activities toward group cohesion. This chapter discuss the methodology that was utilised in this study. Since the purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of outdoor education camp on the group cohesion among selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia students, specifically the following characteristic will be considered: (1) environmental factor (camp location), (2) group factor (campus location) and (3) personal factor (gender, previous recreation experience and place of living). Thus, to ensure that the data represent the desired population, certain methods and procedures were utilised in conducting this study. The details are presented under the following heading: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j)
Design of study Population and Sampling Place of Research Instrumentation Instrument Reliability Pilot Study Factor Analysis Data Collection Procedure Data analysis Data Cleaning and Verification
3.2 Design of Study
The use of a quantitative approach is typically regarded for problems related to the efficacy of an intervention, identifying factors that influence an outcome, or understanding the best predictors of outcomes. Furthermore, quantitative methods aim to identify factors that influence an outcome, measure the effectiveness of an intervention, or test a theory or explanation (Creswell, 2003). Many researcher believed in the effectiveness of true experimental research design which involved random selection of sample in examining 40
causes and effects relationships in a scientific research (Babbie, 2005; Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006; Bell, 2003). However, this kind of research is not always possible. Randomised selection to experimental and control group will shrink the research population thus might reduce the generalisation of research outcomes (Vaske, 2008). For example, not all the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia conduct outdoor education camp for their students. If they do, it would involve only a small number of students. Therefore, randomize selection to experimental and control group will reduce the research population thus it might reduce the generalisation of research finding. According to Aivazidis, Lazaridou, and Hellden (2006), when random assignment is not possible, the next best thing is a pre-test and posttest with non-equivalent control group design. However, validity issues need to be careful controlled in this design. The present study utilised a pre-test and post-test with control group, (Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006) and followed by delayed post-test design without any control group to investigate the impact of outdoor education camp on group cohesion. A pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design allowed us to compare these conditions in both immediate learning gains (at the end of instruction) and also in term of durability of learning over time (Dror, 2011). Somekh and Lewin (2005) addressed that these designs have been recognized as effective in controlling threats of internal validity such as history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, selection and experimental mortality. Babbie (2005) supported that this design offers data for comparison that will reveal the amount of interaction that occur in the classical experimental design. In addition, the formation of a control group allows the researcher to compare and better understand the effect of the treatment (outdoor education camp) on students‟ group cohesion. This design was chosen because it measures the effect of outdoor education toward group cohesion over time through the pre-, post-, and delayed post test scores comparison (American Institute for Research, 2005; Berg & Latin, 2004; Bogner, 1998; Garst et al., 2001; Lindberg, 2009). In support, there are a few studies that utilized quasi experimental design with non-randomization method (eg: Hanna, 1995; Jaffry, 2012; Liu, Tan & Chu, 2009; Mazuki, 2010; Md Amin, 2010; Myers-Lipton, 1998). However, for the purpose of the study, the pre-test and post-test were administered to the four experimental and control groups. Meanwhile delayed post-test was extended only to the four experimental groups that were involved with the treatment. The similar design has been implemented by several previous researchers (Bogner, 1998; Mittelstaedt, Sanker, & VanderVeer, 1999; Reddrop, 1997). In order to study the learning retention of group cohesion on the experimental group, the delayed post-test was conducted two months after completion of their outdoor education camp. A two-month length of time was chosen as the follow up administration period for two reasons. First, a two-month length was the first interval at which long term gains were found in Priest (1996) and 41
Priest‟s (1998b) studies and was between the time intervals in which long-term gains dissipated in Priest and Lesperance‟s 1994 study. Based on the finding, scores had returned to baseline at the three month delay (Priest & Lesperence, 1994). Second, a two month delay was the latest possible point at which participants in this study could be assessed after completion of the camp due to a long semester break. Therefore the current study involved intact group following a quasiexperimental design (none randomized) with delayed effect in examining the effect of outdoor education camp on students‟ group cohesion. The research design is as Figure 3.1.
Experimental Group Outdoor education camp as a treatment
Control Group Non Equivalent group without treatment
Pre Test
Perlis Campus (n=45) Physical Education studies
Perlis Campus (n=43) Social studies
Raja Melewar Campus (n=43) Physical Education studies
Raja Melewar Campus (n=43) Social Studies
Tun Abdul Razak Campus (n=44) Physical Education studies
Tun Abdul Razak Campus (n=44) Social Studies
Temenggung Ibrahim Campus (n=46) Physical Education studies
Temenggung Ibrahim Campus (n=42) Social Studies
Post Test After 2 month Delayed Post-Test
Figure 3. 1: Design of the Study
42
3.3 Population and Sampling
For the purpose of the study, the researcher used purposive sampling technique, where the four campuses of the selected Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia were chosen to form the research population. These campuses were chosen for several reasons as the following criteria below: 1. These campuses offer Physical Education course. 2. The Ministry of Education has declared that the niche area for those campuses is Physical Education. 3. They were conducting outdoor education as a compulsory subject for second year students of Physical Education. 4. There were resemblances in their outdoor education topic as: 4.1 All students must participate in a final camp during the end of the semester. 4.2 The practice of outdoor education in four campuses in line with Kurt Hahn and Outward Bound philosophy as outdoor pursuit activities has been used as a medium for human and personal development. 4.3 The utilised outdoor education curriculum in these institutes is standardised, coordinated and supervised by the Ministry of Education. A majority of the lecturers‟ in-charge gained their early knowledge and experiences in outdoor education from Universiti Putra Malaysia. The camps were conducted in a remote area setting which is away from the main campus. All campuses conduct their final camp in 6-day duration. The population of this research comprised of 350 second year undergraduate students (aged between 18-25 years old) who studied in the four campuses of the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia. Intact classes were used as 178 students formed the experimental group (participate in outdoor education camp), whereas the other 172 act as the control group (Hubungan Etnik (Ethnic Relations) subject). 3.3.1 The Experimental Group
The experimental group (n=178) consisted of second year undergraduate students of outdoor education intact classes. The rational of taking them as experimental group as they showed similarities such as: 1. All of the respondents registered as third semester student in Physical Education program. 2. They were participants in outdoor education camp organised by their campus. 3. There are similarities in term of syllabus, objective and implementation of each camp. 43
The experimental group was tested before they leave for the camp for pre-test and immediately after the camp for post-test. Two months after completion of their outdoor education camp, delayed post-test was conducted to examine the delayed effect. 3.3.2 The Control Group
Outdoor education subject is compulsory for all Physical Education teacher trainees. Thus, it is almost impossible to get a population with similar characteristics to act as an ideal control group. Moreover, outdoor adventure programme participants often represent a diverse group of individuals and researchers are challenged to identify suitable matching control groups (Garst et al., 2001). Thus, the researcher has decided to apply non-equivalent control group design as it is far greater for establishing causal effects relationship than pre-experimental design (Aivazidis et al., 2006). In order to solve the issue, the researcher has identified groups of second year undergraduate students from the field of educational studies (Social Studies) to act as control group (n=172). The rational of choosing them is due to the similar characteristics with experimental group based on these criteria: 1. Both groups (experimental and control group) were second year students at the same campuses and enrolled in the same semester. 2. Both groups study in educational based studies. 3. Registered at the same campus for compulsory courses (Hubungan Etnik (Ethnic Relations)) in the same semester. 4. Range ages for both groups were almost similar (18-25 years old). Based on these criteria, the researcher developed a list of intact classes and one class of each campus will be selected as a control group. Then, the researcher sent a letter to the corresponding lecturer to voluntarily participate in the research. The control group was selected based on first come first serve basis. Please refer to Appendix D for the details of control group. They also did not participate in outdoor education camp but were administered with pre-test and post-test at their respective campuses. The mean differences from these control groups were then compared to the experimental groups in order to determine the effect of the treatment. However, it is important to justify that, the techniques used in this study was utilised and confirmed by several previous researcher as useful in outdoor education field (Achor & Amadu, 2015; Liu et al., 2009; Md Amin, Azlizam, Raja Nor Safinas, Nelfianty, & Mazuki, 2010; Ting & Siew). The similar techniques were utilised and effective in local doctoral research by Md Amin (2010) and Azita (2007).
44
3.4 Place of Research
Outdoor education camp at the Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia will be conducted at remote island setting except for Tun Razak Campus held at an inland with beach area setting. Since respondents came from different campuses and the camps were conducted in accordance with a predetermined place by the respective campuses, there were four different places in collecting the data (refer Table 3.3). However, there were similarities in place of research based on the following criteria: 1. The camp (location of research) was conducted in a remote area and away from the campus. 2. Camping area is surrounded by natural environment which leads to a conducive learning environment. 3. Camp area is safe and suitable for camping. 4. The camps were equipped with land and water based opportunities. 3.5 Instrumentations
For the purpose of gathering data in this study, Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ) (Appendix A) was administered to both groups. Prior to the publication of GEQ (Carron et al., 1985), most researchers faced problems to measure task cohesion as it was not designed in the instrument (Boyle, 2002). As a consequence, there were numerous inconsistent findings of research with regard to group cohesion. Researchers found both positive findings (Ball & Carron, 1976; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978) and negative findings (Landers & Leuschen, 1974) when conducting group cohesion research. The existence of the GEQ however, addressed this weakness in measurement. The instruments comprised of two parts survey. The first focused on demographic profiles meanwhile, the second part consisted of items asking about group cohesion. 3.5.1 Students’ Demographic Inventory
Students were initially required to provide demographic and background information in terms of age, gender, place of residence, preferred recreational activities, and previous experience in outdoor and environmental activities. All of these variables are important as they might influence group cohesion and they were utilized to establish a background profile of the students.
45
3.5.2 Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)
Group Environment Questionnaire was constructed by Carron et al. in 1985. Concurrent validity has been established for the GEQ with the Sport Cohesion Questionnaire, Team Climate Questionnaire, and the Bass‟s Orientation Inventory (Brawley et al., 1987). In addition, over 40 studies have established the content, predictive, and factorial validity of the GEQ (Carron, et al., 1998). Other researchers have supported these measures of internal consistency (e.g. Carron & Brawley, 2000; Halbrook et al., 2012; Malcarne, 2012; Murphy, 2001; Zakrajseka, Abildsoa, Hurstb, & Watson, 2007). There were other instruments that measure group such as Perceived Sense of Community Scale (Bishop, Chertok, & Jason, 1997), The Group Attitude Scale (Evans & Jarvis, 1986), Self-Report Family Inventory (Beavers, Hampson, & Hulgus, 1985), Family Strengths Scale (Olson et al., 1985), Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson et al., 1985), Tuckman‟s Team Work Survey (Clark, 2004) and the Group Cohesion Evaluation Questionnaire (Glass & Benshoff, 2002) but none of these instruments were applicable for use in this study due to different in perspective and dimension. Among the instruments listed, Group Cohesion Evaluation Questionnaire (Glass & Benshoff, 2002) is seen as an instrument that can be considered as fulfilling the criteria as it was designed for outdoor education study. However, this instrument does not contain dimensions to be examined in this study. Furthermore, the instrument is designed for age 11-14 years which are incompatible with the research‟s respondents. Therefore, GEQ was chosen as it covered a complete range of group cohesion attributes. In addition, it was designed for adults between the ages of 18-40 years (Carron et al., 1985). GEQ was the most utilised instrument in team cohesion research and had positive critiques in recent sports psychology instrument evaluations (e.g. Anderson, 2010; Caruso et al., 2013; Iturbide, Elosua, & Yanes, 2010; Mullin, 2014). It was widely used by many researchers to measure group cohesion (e.g. Altman, Estes, & Tittle, 2006; Campbell, Hanna, Tice, & Meyer, 2000; Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002; Chang & Bordia, 2006; Heuze et al., 2006; Kamphoff, Gill, & Huddlestone, 2005; Mugford & Tennant, 2005). Meanwhile, in outdoor education context, GEQ also has been used by numerous researchers that examine the effect of outdoor programme on group cohesion (e.g. Anderson, 2010; Boyle, 2002; Eys et al., 2008; Fletcher & Meyer, 2009; Glass & Benshoff, 2002; Jaffry, 2012; Malcarne, 2012; Mazuki, 2010). As stated earlier, it is difficult to distinguish between group effects and individual effects. What studies have done is usually demonstrated increases in communication between group members, increased trust and willingness to take risks and increased group identity (Ewert & McAvoy, 2000). Although, the GEQ was specifically developed for research on sports team cohesion but it was found as promising as a conceptual and methodological approach with 46
potentially broad applicability to different types of groups 1992).
(Dion & Evans,
It is important to note that, as Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (2002) advocate, the issue of collapsing the four dimensions of cohesion should be done with caution since the dimensions are conceptually different. Therefore, these authors recommended that researchers avoid collapsing the four dimensions of cohesion to calculate a global or overall score. The GEQ was derived from a conceptual model that considers cohesion to be multidimensional construct that includes task and social aspects, each of which reflects both an individual and a group orientation (Carron et al., 1985). The GEQ has 18 items presented on a 9-point scale anchored at the extremes by Strongly agree (9) to Strongly disagree (1); scoring was treated as interval data. However, as Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (2002) advised to measure cohesion in single dimension, total score to represent favourable and unfavourable cohesion for each dimension would be different among them. In short, for the ATG-S, a maximum score of 45 points would indicate very strong favourable individual attraction toward group-social and a minimum score of 5 points would indicate otherwise. On the other hand, for the ATG-T, a maximum score of 36 points would reflect very strong favourable attraction toward grouptask and a minimum of 4 points would indicate otherwise. Meanwhile, for the GI-S, a maximum score of 36 points would reflect very strong favourable group integration-task and a minimum of 4 points would indicate otherwise. Lastly, for the GI-T, a maximum score of 45 points would reflect very strong favourable individual attraction toward group-task and a minimum of 5 points would indicate otherwise. There are 12 items which worded negatively to prevent response bias. Response bias refers to response patterns on questionnaires that do not represent the respondents‟ actual state or opinion (Sonderen, Sanderman, & Coyne, 2013). They are scored reversely from nine to one negatively (Appendix A). Four subscales of cohesion are contained in the GEQ (Figure 3.2), these include: a) Individual Attraction to the Group-Task (ATG-T) ATG-T consists of four questions, which measured the individual team member‟s feeling about his or her personal involvement with the group‟s task, productivity, goals and objectives; (Internal consistency, .75 (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002)) b) Individual Attraction to the Group Social (ATG-S) ATG-S consists of five questions, which measured the individual team member‟s feeling about his or her personal acceptance and social interaction with the group social aspect; (Internal consistency, .64 (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002)). c) Group Integration-Task (GI-T) GI-T consists of five questions, which measured the individual group member‟s feeling about the similarity, closeness and bonding within the 47
team as a whole around the group‟s task; (Internal consistency, .70 (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002)). d) Group Integration Social (GI-S) GI-S consists of four questions, which measured the individual group member‟s perception about the similarity, closeness, and bonding within the group as a whole around the group as a social unit; (Internal consistency, .76 (Carron, Brawley, et al., 2002)).
Team
cohesion Individual attraction to group
Social
Group integration
Task
Social
Task
Figure 3. 2: A Conceptual Model for Team Cohesion in Sports (Source: Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985) 3.6 Instrument Reliability
Reliability is a major concern when an instrument is used to measure some attributes or behaviour (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). It refers to the internal and external stability and validity of an instrument in measuring a certain concept (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Soronsen, 2006), which basically the similar results should be attained (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). For the purpose of getting a reliable instrument to be used in the study, several processes such as identifying the research concept, arranging the wording of the instrument and pilot testing. The preparation of the research instrument involved the following stages: i. ii. iii. iv.
Preliminary study of related questionnaires and materials and translation of the questionnaires into Bahasa Malaysia; Advice from panel of experts; Modification of questionnaires and its translation; Pilot study of the questionnaires.
48
Wording of the research instrument were revised and checked by language expert from Language Unit, Department of Art‟ and Professional to ensure that it was suitable for undergraduate levels. In order to equivalence the translation of the instruments, the questionnaires were first translated into Bahasa Malaysia by a language expert who is proficient in both English and Bahasa Malaysia. The translated questionnaires were then translated back from Bahasa Malaysia to English by another competent language teacher. A third language teacher checked back the translated questionnaires with the original questionnaires. Finally, both the English and Bahasa Malaysia versions of the questionnaires were scrutinized by two expert panel members who are proficient in both languages. Then, the researcher selected and appointed a panel of experts, comprised of seven experienced outdoor education lecturers from Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research University) and Teacher Education Institutes of Malaysia (refer Table 3.1). The roles of these panels of experts were to evaluate, amend, correct and suggest the appropriateness of the items in the questionnaire. Table 3. 1: List of Panel of Experts Ref 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Name Assoc. Prof. Dr. Azlizam Aziz Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah Mohd Assoc. Prof. Dr. Md Amin Md Taff Dr. Saidon Amri Dr. Siti Suriawati binti Isa En. Badrul Zaman Abdul Latiff En. Jalil bin Osman
Institution Universiti Putra Malaysia
Position Lecturer
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Lecturer
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia IPG, Perlis Campus
Lecturer
IPG, Raja Melewar Campus
Lecturer
Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer
Most of the panel of experts responded positively on the instrument. However, to improve the instrument, they recommended several modification and amendment on wording to make in line with the context of outdoor education in Malaysia. A modification of the wordings and sentences was done to suit with Malaysian outdoor education camp environment. Table 3.2 below detailed the modification of the instruments. For instance, based on the recommendations the researcher has modified and replaced the wording of team (in most items except item 2) to group, and season/playing/practice/game/competition (in item 2, 3, 15, 17 and 18) to outdoor education camp.
49
Table 3. 2: Original and Revised Item Statements
Ref. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Original Item Statement I do not enjoy being part of the social activities of this team. I‟m unhappy about the amount of playing time I get. I am not going to miss the members of this team when the season ends. I‟m unhappy with my team‟s level of desire to win. Some of my best friends are on this team. This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance. I enjoy other parties more than team parties. I do not like the style of play on this team For me this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong
12. 13. 14.
Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goals. Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team. Our team members rarely party together. Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team‟s performance.
15.
Our team would like to spend time together in the off-season.
16.
If members of our team have problems in practice, everyone wants to help them so we can get back together again. Our team members do not communicate freely about each athlete‟s responsibilities during competition or practice.
18.
50
Revised Item I dislike being a part of the social activities of this group I‟m dislike with the amount of outdoor education camping time I get I am not going to miss the members of this group when the outdoor education camp ends I‟m unhappy with my group‟s level of desire to success Some of my best friends are in this group This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal growth I enjoy other groups more than group parties I disagree with the style of work on this group For me this group is one of the most important social group to which I belong Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance Members of our group prefer to be on their own than get together as a group. We are responsibility for any loss or poor achievement by our group Our group members rarely meet together Our group members have conflicting aspirations for the group‟s performance Our group would like to get together after the end of the outdoor education camp If members of our group have problems in practice, everyone is ready to help Our group members do not communicate freely about each other‟s responsibilities during outdoor education camp
The researcher then resubmitted the modified version to the panel of experts in order to validate the changes which were based on the recommendations. Upon completion, a pilot study was conducted on a group of social sciences students from Melaka Matriculation College. 3.7 Pilot Study
The pilot study was administered to participants of Bina Insan Guru camping programme (BIG) from Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia, Batu Pahat Campus. A total of 38 respondents (n=38) age between 18 to 25 years old from Social Science programmes students were selected. This pilot study was carried out in March 2014 while the participants attended a three-day BIG camping programme at Ayer Keroh Recreational Park, Melaka. This college was chosen as a sample for the pilot study for several reasons as the following criteria below: 1. The basis of BIG camping programme is similar to outdoor education which emphasised on personal and social development through outdoor based learning. 2. The utilised BIG curriculum is standardised, coordinated and supervised by the Ministry of Education. 3. Batu Pahat Campus also governed by The Ministry of Education which treated BIG as beneficial subject for teachers‟ personal and social development. 4. There were resemblances in their socio-demographic and other characteristic with respondents in the current study: a. Student‟s age ranges involved in the pilot study is between 18-25 years old. b. All students must participate in a final camp during the end of the semester. c. They are part of teacher trainees from Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia which share the same vision and mission of Ministry of Education. 5. The researcher assumed Batu Pahat Campus as a college that is convenient, close at hand and easy to reach. The purpose of this pilot study is to test the internal consistency of the instrument, precision of each item and instructions as well as the practicality of organization of test format. The students were instructed not to feel obliged to answer all questions. They also were encouraged to ask and indicate the question that they did not understand and curious. The data analysis was used for several minor modifications to the items such as rearrange the flow of the items. Furthermore, based on the comments and suggestions from the pilot study several items were reworded and simplified. With regard to the internal consistency of the instrument, Creswell (2003), Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, and Soronsen (2006) and Nunnaly (1978) have agreed that 0.7 Cronbach Alpha coefficient to be an acceptable reliability coefficient, with 51
lower thresholds are sometimes used in the literature. Hair, Education, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2013) have also supported the view that in a study with a small sample size, 0.6 Cronbach Alpha can be considered as the measure of acceptable. In fact, for subscale measure, Nagpal, Kumar, Kakar, and Bhartia, (2010) have suggested to use the cut-off value of 0.6 due to difficulty in achieving acceptable Cronbach‟s alpha level with small number of items. Based on the data from the pilot study (Table 3.3), Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the four subscales revealed that the ATG-T is .629, ATG-S is .601, GI-T is .745 and GI-S is .846. These value of Alpha coefficient were consistent with Carron et al (1985) the original version of GEQ and a Malaysian studies conducted by Jaffry (2012) as well as Mazuki (2010) with somewhat higher and somewhat lower values. Thus, based on this internal consistency finding, the researcher found that the instrument is applicable and appropriate to examine the highlighted issues of this study. Table 3. 3: GEQ Internal Consistency GEQ Subscale ATG-T (4 items) ATG-S (5 items) GI-T (5 items) GI-S (4 items)
Alpha .629 .601 .745 .846
3.8 Factor Analysis
In order to explore the construct dimensions, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to check if the proposed factor structures are indeed consistent with the actual data. Participants of Bina Insan Guru camping programme (BIG) from Teacher Education Institute of Malaysia, Batu Pahat Campus. A total of 100 respondents (n=100) age from 18 to 25 years old from Social Science programmes students were selected. According to Pallant (2005), factor analysis was used to confirm the underlying structure of the study scales. It was done by summarizing the underlying patterns of correlation where the items were grouped together based on its relation with each other. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) recommend an inspection of the correlation matrix for evidence of coefficients should be greater than .3 (r=.3). If few correlations above this level are found, then factor analysis may not be appropriate. There are two parts of analysis involved in these procedures. Part one involved the assessment of the data and the extraction of the factors. Two statistical measures are also generated by SPSS to help assess the factorability of the data: Bartlett‟s test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954 cited in Pallant, 2005), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974 cited in Pallant, 2005). The Bartlett‟s test of Sphericity should be significant (p
