Exploring the Impact of an Outdoor Orientation Program on Adaptation to College

Abstract

Outdoor orientation programming as a means for orientating students to college has experienced significant growth and expanded use over the past decade. An increase in rigorous research has accompanied this growth as colleges and universities seek to understand and meet the needs of young adults in transition. In this study, two research questions were asked regarding the transition into college: Does involvement in outdoor orientation programs (OOPs) improve adaptation to college (Research Question 1), and are there differences in adaptation between different types of OOPs (e.g., wilderness-, camp-, and urban-based; Research Question 2). In this study, 455 incoming students (168 OOP participants and 287 non-OOP) completed measures of adaptation to college after the first 8 weeks of their collegiate experience. Results indicate significant differences between OOP and non-OOP students in overall adaptation to college, social adaptation, and attachment to institution, but found few differences between various types of OOP options.

Keywords

outdoor orientation college transition first-year program

The move into college is a significant time of transition and change. During this transition, students face a new social network, a new setting, new responsibilities, and a movement from parental oversight (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Adapting to the environment of college involves significant adjustments in all areas of life. Erickson and Strommer (1991) noted that social adjustment with peers and roommates, acquisition of academic skills such as studying and writing, orientation to college culture, policies and expectations, independent responsibility for personal care, time and money management, and developing a vision for the college experience are all important transitional tasks for students.

Many researchers have explored transitions in general, seeking to understand the factors and outcomes that are involved with a process of change (i.e., Astin, 1993; Chickering, 1993; Kuh, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto, 1994). Attention to the importance of the transition into college specifically has increased with “overwhelming evidence that student success is largely determined by student experiences during the first year” (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005, p. 1). In fact, “attention to the first year of college has become a mature reform movement within the context of American higher education in the late 20th and early 21st centuries” (Upcraft et al., 2005, p. 4). An overarching assumption of this study is that how students start college will determine in large part the impact of the college experience and their ability to transition out of college into adulthood.

As the importance of effective transitions continues to grow, many colleges and universities have created programs that address the needs of incoming students. Some of these efforts are seen in improved admissions processes, while others are larger and more formalized orientation and pre-orientation programs. Some schools have even instituted semester-long transitional programs through first-year seminars, learning communities, common reading programs, peer mentoring, and improved faculty advising. In a study by Upcraft et al. (2005), researchers found that student success in these first-year programs is broadly defined but that most programs include at least one of the following criteria for effectiveness: developing intellectual and academic competence, establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships, progressing on identity formation, increasing clarity on career goals, maintaining health and wellness, considering faith and the spiritual dimensions of life, developing multicultural awareness, and cultivating civic responsibility. The overarching goal of these efforts is to create an educational environment in which students gain the skills and perspectives necessary to adapt well to their new context and develop the social support necessary to persist and succeed.

Typical Program Components in Outdoor Orientation Programs (OOPs)

Bell, Gass, Nafziger, and Starbuck (2014) suggested that

Outdoor orientation programs can be characterized as an orientation or pre-orientation program experience comprised of three factors: (a) students are placed in small groups of fifteen or fewer individuals; (b) students spend at least one night camping away from campus; and (c) the program includes one or more adventure experiences (e.g. hiking, rock climbing, canoeing, ropes course). (p. 33)

Other components identified by Bell et al. (2014) are the use of novel environments and challenge elements that facilitate group development. They also emphasize the focus on transferring what is learned during an experience to broader life experience. Within these core program elements, programs vary in their structure and format. In 2010, Bell, Holmes, and Williams published a census on Outdoor Education Programs in the United States, highlighting elements that are common in OOPs across the country. Among other things, Bell et al. (2014) found that the average length of an OOP is 5.5 days and the average number of participants is 121. They also found that 90% of programs are optional to students and 23% are credit based.

In the last decade, the development and use of OOPs specifically as transitional experiences has grown (Bell et al., 2014; Bobilya, Akey, & Mitchell, 2011). In 2010, Bell et al. identified 164 colleges with OOPs. Four years later, Bell et al. (2014) verified 191 colleges in the United States as colleges that use OOPs to aid in the transition to higher education. As the number of OOPs has grown, research on the essential components as well as the impact of such programs has increased as well. Bell et al. (2014) found a total of 25 studies on OOPs and 11 doctoral dissertations. In surveying these studies, Bell et al. (2014) identified 18 dependent variables that have been measured in OOPs. A review of existing research on this topic reveals that OOPs can contribute to positive adaptation to college academically, relationally, and personally.

Impact of Outdoor Education

Academically, the findings across the studies are fairly consistent. Outdoor orientation participants tend to have higher grade point averages (GPAs; Gass, 1987; Vlamis, 2002), persist to the second year at higher rates (Brown, 1998; Gass, 1987), and show increased social interest focus (Kafsky, 2001). Bobilya and Akey (2002) also found that outdoor education enhanced self-learning skills such as critical thinking and competence as well as fostered connections for residential learning communities of first-year students. OOPs also have a positive impact on the development of critical life skills, attitudes, and relationships, especially as it relates to college success (Bell et al, 2010; Bobilya et al., 2011; Brown, 1998; Gass, Garvey, & Sugarman, 2003; Hinton, Twilley, & Mittelstaedt, 2006; Kanters, Bristol, & Attarian, 2002).

Relationally, outdoor orientation participants tend to have stronger social support as they enter college, and these relationships can last well into college and beyond (Bell, 2005; Farmer, 2002; Gass et al., 2003). Austin, Martin, Mittelstaedt, Schanning, and Ogle (2009) found that outdoor orientation students increased their number of reported friends from 2.2 to 12.8 and the number of people they could trust with secrets increased from 0.6 to 4.8, classifying both of these outcomes as social benefits of OOPs. Austin et al. (2009) also found that outdoor orientation students experienced positive social benefits of comfort with place, motivation to try new things, and confidence in new settings. Langan, Setran, and McRay (2008) found that, besides residence halls, involvement in the college’s OOP was the second highest place in which students found their closest friends in college. Bell’s (2006) study found that participants in a wilderness-based orientation program reported higher levels of social support in six subfactors including attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, tangible support, guidance, and opportunity for nurturance.

The personal and emotional benefits are also fairly consistent across programs. Hinton et al. (2006) found improvements in overall self-efficacy, especially in the physical and interpersonal domains. Anderson-Hanley (1995) found that students who participated in a semester-long, outdoor-based, first-year seminar had significant decreases in identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration) over those who did not. Oravecz (2002) qualitatively discovered that outdoor orientation students reported greater self-concept and self-confidence, increased responsibility for their learning, had established meaningful relationships, and were more interested in wilderness leadership in the future as a result of their experience.

Taken together, this research provides insight into many specific outcomes of OOPs. However, the outcome/impact variables being studied are all very specific, and there is less research on the effect of OOPs on overall adaptation to college. According to Bell et al. (2014), two studies have been conducted on student adjustment to college, both using the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ). Bobilya et al. (2011) compared the SACQ results of two groups: one consisting of 11 OOP participants and one consisting of 12 non-OOP participants. The group of non-OOP participants served as the control group. A review of the results revealed that “students preformed significantly higher on the Full Scale, t(18) = 3.00, p = .008, and on three of four subscales: Social Adjustment (p = .003); Personal-Emotional Adjustment (p = .003); and Attachment to Institution (p = .011)” (Bobilya et al., 2011, p. 310). Brown (1998) also used the SACQ to compare how well students in three different types of orientation programs adjusted to college. Brown’s (1998) sample size for the SACQ was 277. His results revealed a trend of higher adjustment scores on the overall and subscales for students who completed an OOP. Significant differences were found in overall adjustment scores, social adjustment scores, and institutional attachment scores (Brown, 1998).

The current project seeks to contribute recent data from a large sample size to the study of student adjustment into college as it relates to OOPs. The main research question asked if involvement in OOPs improves adaptation to college in traditional incoming college students (Research Question 1 [RQ1]). Given the structure of the program studied—it offers an OOP in three different formats: camp, wilderness, and urban—one additional question is considered: Are there any differences in adaptation to college between different types of OOPs (e.g., wilderness-, camp-, and urban-based; Research Question 2 [RQ2]). With regard to RQ1 it was hypothesized that OOP students would score higher on the SACQ than non-OOP participants. With regard to RQ2, it was hypothesized that the wilderness option, which is longer than the other options, would correlate with higher levels of adjustment.

Method

Program

The current sample is from a small, private, liberal arts, evangelical Christian college in Illinois. Given that the 2012 OOP averages for age, length, and size were 15 years, 5.5 days, and 121 participants, respectively (Bell et al., 2014), the current sample is one of the oldest (47 years), longest (program options range from 8 to 15 days), and largest (262 participants in 2016) orientation programs. This program offers three different options to participants, all of which fulfill the same purpose and goal.

This program consisted of four phases: foundation, separation, transition, and integration. For the foundation phase, students applied for the program and completed pre-course readings and reflection assignments as part of the curriculum. In the separation phase, students were placed into small groups of eight to 10 and participated in a 12-day wilderness expedition, a 4-day camp-based program, or a 7-day urban service learning experience in Chicago. For the transition phase, all students converged at the college’s camp for 5 days. During this phase, each small group is joined by a faculty member who leads the group through a common reading program focused on four themes: worldview formation, personal formation, community, and service. During the final integration phase, participant groups met with their faculty leader on campus twice during the first 8 weeks of the fall semester to talk about their transition to college and develop a vision for their next 4 years. Between the transition and integration phases, all incoming students (e.g., both those who were a part of the OOPs and those who were not) participated in the mandatory 5-day new student orientation program on the main campus prior to the start of the fall semester.

Participants

This OOP included 215 students (32.8% of the incoming class) who participated in the OOP and 480 students (67.8%) who did not (Table 1). To arrive at the present sample, 39 students were eliminated because they were 17 years of age or younger and parental permission was not pursued. Furthermore, 201 participants were removed because their surveys were incomplete. The final sample of 455 students represented 69.5% (n = 695) of the incoming freshman class and included both pre- and post-measures.

Table 1.

Relation Between Sample Size and Total Incoming Class Size.

	Incoming class	Sample	Male	Female
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
OOPs	215 (32.8)	168 (36.8)	62 (36.9)	104 (61.9)
Non-OOPs	480 (67.8)	287 (62.9)	129 (44.9)	154 (53.7)
Total	695	455	191 (42.0)	258 (56.7)

Note. OOP = outdoor orientation program.

Procedure

The data in this study were collected as a part of a larger investigation on the impact of OOPs on the transition to college and identity formation. The study followed a quasi-experimental, double-blind method using a sample of the incoming class at a selective Protestant Evangelical liberal arts college in the Midwest. The SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1999) was administered to all first-year students halfway through the fall semester in an introductory theology class that is attended by the majority of the first-year students. The SACQ was chosen because it is one of the most widely used and tested standardized measures of student adjustment to college (Crede & Niehorster, 2012). Students completed the surveys using either an online or an identical paper copy (for students without computer access). By this time, OOP participants had completed both of the two required on-campus meetings with their faculty member. The test was administered under the authority of the college’s Office of Research and Assessment with approval of the institutional review board.

Measures

The SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1999) was used to measure student perspectives on adaptation to college. The SACQ is a 67-item self-report questionnaire intended for first-year students during the first semester. The SACQ is divided into four subscales: Academic Adjustment (24 items), Social Adjustment (20 items), Personal-Emotional Adjustment (15 items), and Goal Commitment/Institutional Attachment (15 items). Seven items are included on multiple scales. Students respond using a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (applies very closely to me) to 9 (doesn’t apply to me at all). The SACQ is designed to be used both as a composite measure and as separate scale scores (Baker & Siryk, 1999). The sum of scores across the 67 items provides an index of overall adjustment with higher scores representing better adjustment. The maximum score on the composite score, for example, would be 666 (67 items with nine possible points for each item). The sums of the scores across the items that make up the separate scales provide an index of adjustment in specific areas. Baker and Siryk (1999) reported reliability coefficients of .83 to .89 for the academic subscale, .83 to .91 for the social subscale, .77 to .85 for the personal-emotional subscale, and .85 to .91 for the attachment subscale.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that need to be identified. First, there were limitations of the research design that, if improved, would enhance the quality and clarity of the lessons learned. This study followed a quantitative methodology that could obscure individual differences. This study also relied heavily on self-reports from 18- to 19-year-olds who may be particularly image conscious and were experiencing the instability and uncertainty of a major life transition. During this period of change, the ability to provide accurate self-reports may be compromised. Second, there are limitations of the sample. The college of this study is a highly selective, academically rigorous, non-regional institution with the vast majority of students coming from Protestant, Evangelical Christian religious background. This sample is also predominantly Caucasian and has a high percentage of students from intact families in which both birth parents reside (93.4%). Finally, the urban track was in its first year and was a small sample compared with the others. Although adjusted statistically, the small group size may affect the power and effect sizes of the related analyses.

Results

Demographics

The sample used in this study included 455 first-year students, which was 65.4% of the incoming class of first-year students. Within the sample of 455 students, 42% were male and 56% were female. The 455 students are further categorized by OOP participation (168 students) and non-OOP participation (287 students). Within the OOP participant sample of 168 students, 36.9% were male and 61.9% were female. Within the non-OOP participant sample of 287 students, 44.9% were male and 53.7% were female. The current gender ratio at the institution is 48% male and 52% female (http://www.wheaton.edu). Table 1 provides further information on the gender differences in the overall sample and in the OOP and non-OOP populations. Of the OOP participants, 78.6% of the wilderness participants, 76.8% of the camp participants, and 87.5% of the urban participants participated in the study (Table 2). As the total number of students who participated in each type varied (wilderness n = 61, camp n = 138, urban n = 16), caution must be used in drawing comparisons across the three groups. Demographics of the sample relating to race, age, and family type are shown in Table 3. Ethnically, this sample consisted of 83.1% Caucasian, 7.3% Asian, 3.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 6.3% Other. The ethnic differences in the total sample were similar to the ethnic differences in the OOP participant and non-OOP participant samples (Table 3). The current population at the larger institution consists of 20% American ethnic minority students (http://www.wheaton.edu). The mean age was 18.29 and 93.4% of the students came from original two-parent families.

Table 2.

Sample Population Subdivided by Type of OOP.

OOP type	Total possible participants	Sample (response rate %)	OOP type represented in sample
OOP type	n	n (%)	%
Camp	138	106 (63.1)	76.8
Wilderness	61	48 (28.6)	78.6
Urban	16	14 (8.3)	87.5
Total	215	168	78.1

Note. OOP = outdoor orientation program.

Table 3.

Demographics of 455 Study Participants.

Variable	Male	Female	OOP	Non-OOP	Total	% of Sample
Variable	n	n	n (%)	n (%)	Total	% of Sample
Gender
Female			104 (62.7%)	154 (54.4%)	258	56.6
Male			62 (37.3%)	129 (45.6%)	192	42.1
Missing					6	1.3
Race
Caucasian	163	210	144 (85.7%)	234 (81.5%)	378	83.1
Asian	11	22	6 (3.6%)	27 (9.4%)	33	7.3
Latino	5	10	6 (3.6%)	9 (3.1%)	15	3.3
African	1	4	3 (1.8%)	2 (0.7%)	5	1.1
Other	11	11	9 (5.4%)	15 (5.2%)	24	5.2
Age
M = 18.29
18 years	120	201	121 (72.0%)	202 (70.4%)	324	71.1
19 years	61	46	42 (25.0%)	67 (23.3%)	109	23.9
20-26 years	7	5	3 (1.8%)	10 (3.4%)	23	5.0
Family type
Two-parent	184	236	155 (92.3%)	270 (94.1%)	425	93.4
Single-parent	4	13	9 (5.4%)	8 (2.8%)	17	3.7
Other	4	9	4 (2.4%)	9 (3.1%)	13	2.9

Note. OOP = outdoor orientation program.

OOPs and Adaptation to College

The first research question asked if involvement in OOPs improves adaptation to college. The t tests (shown in Table 4) measuring difference between the groups indicated that students participating in OOPs had significantly higher overall SACQ scores than non-OOP participants (p = .038, d = .20). On the subscales, there was also significant differences between OOP and non-OOP students in Social Adaptation (p = .000, d = .38) and Attachment to Institution (p = .009, d = .25). All of these differences have a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). In contrast to these significant differences, no significant differences were observed between OOP participants and non-OOP participants in subscale measures of academic (p = .321) and personal adaptation (p = .854; Table 4). Alpha coefficients run on all the scales in this study showed reliability scores equal to or higher than the standards noted by Baker and Siryk (1999).

Table 4.

The t-Test Results Comparing SACQ Scores of OOP Participants and Non-OOP Participants.

	n	M	SD	t	df	p	d
SACQ adaptation				2.08	449	.038*
OOPs	167	449.11	57.75				.20
Non-OOPs	284	437.36	58.10				Medium
SACQ academic				.99	448	.321
OOPs	165	152.65	21.05
Non-OOPs	285	150.50	22.65
SACQ social				4.03	449	.000*
OOPs	166	140.84	22.41				.38
Non-OOPs	285	131.94	22.76				Medium
SACQ personal/emotional				.18	451	.854
OOPs	167	92.96	17.17
Non-OOPs	286	92.66	17.06
SACQ attachment institution				2.63	453	.009*
OOPs	168	114.55	15.87				.25
Non-OOPs	287	110.35	16.78				Medium

Note. SACQ = Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire; OOP = outdoor orientation program.

p < .05.

Adaptation to College by OOP Type

To understand these differences in greater depth and consider how program format influenced the SACQ results, the second research question asked if there were significant differences in adaptation between the three OOP tracks (e.g., wilderness-, camp-, and urban-based) and non-OOP participants. An ANOVA was run with four groups—OOPs-wilderness, OOPs-urban, OOPs-camp, and non-OOPs—on each of the five SACQ scales. Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA, indicating a marginally significant (p = .055) difference in the overall adaptation to college between groups and a significant difference in social adjustment between groups (p = .000). There were no differences in any other subscales (Table 5). Contrary to what was predicted, post hoc tests suggest that the OOPs-urban track (not the wilderness group) had significantly higher adaptation scores over the non-OOPs group on both Full Scale Adaptation and Social Adjustment subscale (Table 6). The effect size, however, for both of these differences is small (0.17 for Full Scale Adaptation and .039 for Social Adjustment subscale).

Table 5.

One-Way ANOVAs Revealing Marginal or Greater Significance on Adaptation by OOPs/Non-OOPs.

Adaptation	df	MS	f	p	η²	Effect size
SACQ Adaptation Full Scale
Between groups	3	8,547.48	2.55	.055	.017	Small
Within groups	447	3,350.56	2.55	.055	.017	Small
SACQ Social Adjustment
Between groups	3	3,116.32	6.09	.000	.039	Small
Within groups	447	512.083	6.09	.000	.039	Small

Note. OOP = outdoor orientation program; SACQ = Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Table 6.

Post Hoc Results for Tests of Difference in Full Scale and Social Adaptation.

	OOPs-Urban (1)		Non-OOPs (2)		Post hoc
	M	SD	M	SD	Post hoc
SACQ Adaptation Full Scale	474.21	53.15	437.36	58.10	1 > 2
SACQ Social Adjustment	145.43	19.65	131.94	22.76	1 > 2

Note. The numbers in parentheses in column heads refer to the numbers used for illustrating significant differences in the last column titled “post hoc.” OOP = outdoor orientation program; SACQ = Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Discussion

Significance of Findings and Implications for Educational Practice

The first research question of this study asked whether OOPs involvement produced a difference in adaptation to college over non-OOPs involvement. The results of this study suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between OOP and non-OOP students in overall adaptation to college, social adjustment, and attachment to institution. Specifically, these differences indicated a higher level of adaptation in OOP students compared with non-OOP students with each exhibiting a medium effect size (d = .20). These findings are consistent with previous studies that used the SACQ (Bobilya et al., 2011) as well as with the literature that shows improved adjustment to college in a variety of areas with participation in an OOP (Bell, 2006; Gass et al., 2003; Hinton et al., 2006; Ishler & Upcraft, 2005; Kuh, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Related to social adjustment, the differences in this study indicated a higher level of social adaptation in OOP students compared with non-OOP students with each exhibiting a medium effect size (d = .38). This is not surprising, given Bell and Williams’ (2006) claimed that first-year students are often more afraid of failing to adjust socially than they are of failing to adjust academically. In a 2011 study on an adventure-based first-year experience (similar to OOPs), Bell and Holmes reported that the fear of rejection was no longer present after the OOP. Bell and Holmes (2011) also noted that the goal of developing deep interpersonal relationships was achieved in 83% of students participating in the OOP. In light of these studies and others like it (Bobilya et al., 2011; Gass et al., 2003), our research shows that the social support and depth of relationships gained from OOP experiences become one of the most salient aspects of the college experience.

This study also found that OOPs significantly improved attachment to the institution. Institutional attachment, as measured by SACQ, addresses the students’ sense of being “at home” and bonding with the college culture and ethos. Social adjustment and attachment to institution contribute in important ways to the overall satisfaction of students with their college experience. This factor is critical to retention and having a sense of belonging (Baker & Siryk, 1999). Reason (2009) also found that persistence is affected by the students’ perception of the alignment of an institution’s actions with its mission and vision. Colleges and universities may do well to consider providing OOP experiences designed specifically for their unique mission and culture and especially for students with particular needs or challenges.

Regarding the lack of significant differences between OOP and non-OOP participants in the other subscales (Academic and Personal/Emotional Adjustment), Bell et al.’s (2014) conceptualization of outcome and mediating variables is helpful. Bell et al. (2014) suggested that social variables are mediating variables. Although changes in mediating variables influence the changes in outcome variables, it is likely that the value of increases in mediating variables is not immediately manifest in outcome variables. This phenomenon would be consistent with the existing body of research that reveals that connections between OOPs and variables such as GPA and self-awareness are less prominent than social variables (Anderson-Hanley, 1995; Gass, 1987; Hinton et al., 2006; Oravecz, 2002; Vlamis, 2002). This proposition that mediating social variables show change before outcome variables would further explain why there were differences in overall adaptation without significant differences in two of the four subscales on the SACQ. If the other subscales (such as academic adjustment) were outcomes of mediating variables (such as social adaptation), changes would not necessarily appear in the outcome variables at the same time as the mediating variables. This is further supported by Astin (1993), who suggested that “the students peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years” (p. 398). Given Astin’s thoughts and the results of this study, it seems that successful social adjustment may be a strong predictor of success in overall adaptation and outcome variables such as GPA and retention.

Contrary to the prediction that the largest difference between the three OOP and non-OOP groups would exist between the OOP-wilderness and non-OOP students, results revealed that the greatest difference lay between the urban track OOP group and the non-OOP group. Although not negating the possibility that service learning experiences may be a valuable way to orient students to their college experience, this finding should be generalized with caution, as the urban sample was considerably smaller than the other groups.

The urban track was primarily a service learning experience, making it particularly unique among the three track options. Whereas the camp and wilderness track options involve program elements such as overnight camping, adventure challenge, solitude, experiences in creation, and isolated community experiences, the urban track consists of program elements related to living and serving in an urban context. With regard to service learning experiences like the urban track, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that “service learning courses help student clarify and define their identities and improve their self-esteem, internal locus of control, and interpersonal skills” (p. 611). Although it is clear that service learning experiences are influential in student identity and interpersonal skill formation, there is little supporting evidence that these experiences are indeed more effective in helping students adapt to college than other experiences. These findings raise an important question about the salient features of OOPs and could provide a foundation for further research.

Suggestions for Future Research

Based upon these results and the limitations noted, there are several recommendations that could be considered for future research on this topic. First, the study could be completed across multiple, diverse institutions that offer OOPs to provide a better picture of the impact of these programs on adaptation. Another recommendation is to complete a mixed method study in which a small sample of exemplars or randomly chosen students are interviewed about their OOP experience and the transition to college. Insights gained from these discussions would provide richer description of the impact of OOPs. Bobilya et al. (2011) provided an excellent example of a mixed method design in researching the impact of a wilderness orientation program on adaptation to college and spiritual formation.

In addition, the current study could have been enhanced by exploring the potential impact of the specific components of the OOPs. Informal faculty interaction, engagement, and experientially based pedagogy have all been shown to improve the impact of college on several aspects of student development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) but were not examined in this study. In addition to group composition and weather, program elements such as solos, ropes courses, orienteering, and instructor rapport have been found to play a significant role in formation and development (Sibthorp et al., 2004, 2007). Specific questions about the value or quality of these components of the OOPs on student learning and growth would enhance understanding of how OOPs affect students.

Given the discussion of mediating and outcome variables, future research may also seek to further classify the various outcomes of OOPs and assess consistency of outcomes over time. Institutions of higher learning with OOPs may also be interested in the long term impact of OOPs involvment on other outcomes such as alumni participation, fundraising, and long term loyalty to the institution.

Finally, further studies could address the differences in adaptation based on program type. This study revealed increased adaptation in the urban program over the wilderness and camp-based studies. While this may have been due to a smaller sample size, further study on general and specific differences in program elements and overall outcomes would enhance this field of study.

In conclusion, a foundational claim of this study is that how students start college affects the entirety of the college experience. Based on the results, OOPs do improve the transition to college overall and in specific outcomes such as social adjustment and attachment to institution. This study may help explain the rapid growth in the OOPs movement and the ways that such programs are contributing to a healthier college transition.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

There have been many attempts to categorize and label these programs under one umbrella term and there are still many names and abbreviations being used. For the purposes of this article, outdoor orientation programs (OOPs) will be used to describe what some researchers refer to as wilderness or adventure orientation programs as this is the most commonly used and well-defined terminology.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Robert Ribbe Jr., PhD, is an assistant professor and director of HoneyRock, The Outdoor Center for Leadership Development of Wheaton College. His passion is utilizing camp and adventure-based outdoor programming in the college context to develop whole and effective people for contribution to society worldwide.

Rachael Cyrus, MA, directs Wheaton Passage, Wheaton’s 48 year old outdoor orientation program. She combines a passion for environmental stewardship, leadership development and holistic formation to her role.

Emily Langan, PhD, is an associate professor of Communication at Wheaton College specializing in friendship and sport communication. She has completed extensive research on relationship maintenance, group cohesion, and humor, with specific application to OOP.

References

Anderson-Hanley

C. M.

(1995). Identity development: The comparative effects of two Outward Bound-type programs and a control condition on college students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. AAT 9616271)

Astin

(1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin

Martin

Mittelstaedt

R. D.

Schanning

Ogle

(2009). Outdoor orientation program effects: Sense of place and social benefits. Journal of Experiential Education, 31, 435-439. doi:10.5193/JEE.31.3.390

Baker

R. W.

Siryk

M. A.

(1999). SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Bell

B. J.

(2005). College students’ development of social support and its relationship to pre-orientation experiences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. AAT 3169076)

Bell

B. J.

(2006). Wilderness orientation: Exploring the relationship between college pre-orientation programs and social support. Journal of Experiential Education, 29, 145-167.

Bell

B. J.

Gass

M. J.

Nafziger

C. S.

Starbuck

J. D.

(2014). The state of the knowledge of outdoor orientation programs: Current practices, research and theory. Journal of Experiential Education, 37, 31-45.

Bell

B. J.

Holmes

(2011). Important factors leading to outdoor orientation program outcomes: A qualitative exploration of survey results. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 3(1), 26-39.

Bell

B. J.

Holmes

Williams

(2010). A census of outdoor orientation programs at four-year colleges in the United States. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(1), 1-18. doi:10.5193/JEE33.1.1

10.

Bell

B. J.

Williams

B. G.

(2006). Learning from first-year fears: An analysis of the Harvard First-Year Outdoor Program’s “Fear in a Hat” exercise. Journal of College Student Orientation and Transition, 14(1), 47-61.

11.

Bobilya

A. J.

Akey

L. D.

(2002). An evaluation of adventure education components in a residential learning community. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 296-304.

12.

Bobilya

A. J.

Akey

Mitchell

Jr. (2011). Outcomes of a spiritually focused wilderness orientation program. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(4), 301-322. doi:10.5193/JEE33.4.301

13.

Brown

D. A.

(1998). Does an outdoor orientation program really work? College and University, 73(4), 17-23.

14.

Chickering

(1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Crede

Niehorster

(2012). Adjustment to college as measured by the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire: A quantitative review of its structure and relationships with correlates and consequences. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 133-165.

17.

Erickson

Strommer

(1991). Teaching college freshman. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Farmer

(2002). Design and evaluation of a student orientation program for entering freshmen students at the University of Idaho utilizing wilderness experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. AAT 3076169)

19.

Gass

M. A.

(1987). The effects of a wilderness orientation program on incoming students to a university setting. Journal of Experiential Education, 10(2), 30-33.

20.

Gass

M. A.

Garvey

D. E.

Sugarman

D. A.

(2003). The long-term effects of a first-year student wilderness orientation program. Journal of Experiential Education, 26, 34-40.

21.

Hinton

J. L.

Twilley

D. L.

Mittelstaedt

R. D.

(2006). An investigation of self-efficacy in a freshman wilderness experience program. Research in Outdoor Education, 8, 105-118.

22.

Ishler

Upcraft

M. L.

(2005). The keys to first-year student persistence. In UPcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

Barefoot

B. O.

(Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first year student: Handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 27-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Kafsky

(2001). The effect of a freshman adventure orientation program on the development of social interest (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. AAT 3031087)

24.

Kanters

M. A.

Bristol

D. G.

Attarian

(2002). The effects of outdoor experiential training on perceptions of college stress. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 257-367.

25.

Kuh

(2005). Student engagement in the first year of college. In Upcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

Barefoot

B. O.

(Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first year student: Handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 86-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Langan

Setran

McRay

(2008, October). Friendship at a Christian college: A survey of an entire college community and implications for college ministry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Professors of Christian Education, Atlanta, GA.

27.

Oravecz

(2002). The use of outdoor experiential education in higher education: An investigation of factors in wilderness orientation programs that influence student adjustment—A descriptive analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. AAT 3055767)

28.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

(1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

(2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Reason

R. D.

(2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 659-682. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0098

31.

Sibthorp

Arthur-Banning

(2004). Developing life effectiveness through adventure education: The roels of participant expectations, perceptions of empowerment, and learning relevance. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(1), 32-50.

32.

Sibthorp

Paisley

Gookin

(2007). Exploring participant development through adventure-based programming: A model from the National Outdoor leadsrhip School. Leisure Science, 29, 1-18.

33.

Tinto

(1994). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.

34.

Upcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

Barefoot

B. O.

(2005). Challenging & supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Vlamis

(2002). The effects of an adventure orientation program on incoming first year students (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of New Hampshire, Durham.