The accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor education

In the present era of outcome assessment and accountability, self-efficacy is a popular outcome measure in outdoor and adventure education. Self-efficacy beliefs are context specific perceptions an individual possesses about a likelihood of success in future tasks and are related to well-being confidence, and persistence. However, recent research findings refute the traditional view that more is better, when it comes to selfefficacy beliefs. Specifically, findings indicate that these beliefs can be inaccurate and can easily become inflated resulting in decreases in motivation and performance. Outdoor and adventure-based education is one such context to avoid the inflation of selfefficacy beliefs due to the physical and educational consequences associated with failure (e.g., psychological harm, injury, or death). The following research examined a proposed seven factor structure of outdoor education practice. Exploratory factor analysis results (N = 303) indicated a 23-item, 5- factor structure which included (a) instruction and assessment, (b) outdoor classroom management, (c) technical skill, (d) interpersonal skill, and (e) environmental integration. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 200) examined the fit of this model. Results indicated an acceptable fit with strong internal consistency and convergent validity for the Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy Scale with 22 items (TOE-SES 22). Subsequent research examined the effects of a monitoring intervention on the accuracy of teaching outdoor education self-efficacy beliefs. Treatment group participants on National Outdoor Leadership School Instructor Courses predicted their performance (a self-efficacy belief) before teaching a course topic, self-assessed that performance, and compared the accuracy of their predictions and self-assessments to an expert evaluation of their performance. Results indicated outdoor educators-in-training integrated this information and calibrated their TOESE beliefs better than the control group. Attending to the accuracy of teacher self-efficacy beliefs early in an educator's career may help him approach or avoid tasks when appropriate and ultimately, direct him toward developing the skills he is lacking. Teaching outdoor education is a complex task involving several factors, monitoring interventions are a strategy outdoor educator trainers should consider in their efforts to help emerging outdoor educators hone a complex set of skills to effectively and safely teach in the outdoors.

THE ACCURACY OF SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION by Scott Schumann A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism University of Utah May 2013 Copyright © Scott Schumann 2013 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Scott Schumann has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Jim Sibthorp , Chair 2/29/12 Date Approved Karen Paisley , Member 11/22/11 Date Approved Edward Ruddell , Member 11/22/11 Date Approved Ann Darling , Member 11/22/11 Date Approved Doug Hacker , Member 11/22/11 Date Approved and by Daniel Dustin , Chair of the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In the present era of outcome assessment and accountability, self-efficacy is a popular outcome measure in outdoor and adventure education. Self-efficacy beliefs are context specific perceptions an individual possesses about a likelihood of success in future tasks and are related to well-being confidence, and persistence. However, recent research findings refute the traditional view that more is better, when it comes to self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, findings indicate that these beliefs can be inaccurate and can easily become inflated resulting in decreases in motivation and performance. Outdoor and adventure-based education is one such context to avoid the inflation of self-efficacy beliefs due to the physical and educational consequences associated with failure (e.g., psychological harm, injury, or death). The following research examined a proposed seven factor structure of outdoor education practice. Exploratory factor analysis results (N = 303) indicated a 23-item, 5- factor structure which included (a) instruction and assessment, (b) outdoor classroom management, (c) technical skill, (d) interpersonal skill, and (e) environmental integration. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 200) examined the fit of this model. Results indicated an acceptable fit with strong internal consistency and convergent validity for the Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy Scale with 22 items (TOE-SES 22). Subsequent research examined the effects of a monitoring intervention on the accuracy of teaching outdoor education self-efficacy beliefs. Treatment group participants on National Outdoor Leadership School Instructor Courses predicted their performance (a self-efficacy belief) before teaching a course topic, self-assessed that performance, and compared the accuracy of their predictions and self-assessments to an expert evaluation of their performance. Results indicated outdoor educators-in-training integrated this information and calibrated their TOESE beliefs better than the control group. Attending to the accuracy of teacher self-efficacy beliefs early in an educator's career may help him approach or avoid tasks when appropriate and ultimately, direct him toward developing the skills he is lacking. Teaching outdoor education is a complex task involving several factors, monitoring interventions are a strategy outdoor educator trainers should consider in their efforts to help emerging outdoor educators hone a complex set of skills to effectively and safely teach in the outdoors. iv To Devi Rose and Joan Schumann, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... viii Chapters I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 References ................................................................................................................6 II THE ILLUSION OF COMPETENCE: INCREASING SELF-EFFICACY IN OUTDOOR LEADERS ...................................................................................10 Abstract ..................................................................................................................10 Introduction ............................................................................................................11 Literature Review...................................................................................................12 Conclusion .............................................................................................................31 References ..............................................................................................................32 III THE DEVELOPMENT AND SCALING OF THE TEACHING OUTDOOR EDUCATION SELF-EFFICACY SCALE ...........................................................39 Abstract .................................................................................................................39 Introduction ...........................................................................................................40 Methods (Study 1)..................................................................................................49 Results (Study 1) ....................................................................................................52 Methods (Study 2)..................................................................................................53 Results (Study 2) ....................................................................................................57 Discussion and Conclusions ..................................................................................61 References ..............................................................................................................63 IV IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EMERGING OUTDOOR EDUCATOR'S TEACHING SELF-EFFICACY THROUGH A METACOGNITIVE MONITORING INTERVENTION .......................................................................68 Abstract .................................................................................................................68 Introduction ...........................................................................................................69 Methods .................................................................................................................76 Results ....................................................................................................................81 Discussion ..............................................................................................................85 Conclusion .............................................................................................................90 References ..............................................................................................................91 V SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................96 References ..............................................................................................................99 Appendices A: MONITORING EXERCISE WORKSHEETS ..............................................101 B: TEACHING OUTDOOR EDUCATION SELF-EFFICACY SCALE (TOE-SES 22) ...................................................108 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Not unlike an expedition in mountains this project was successful due to the contribution and support of many people. First, I would like to thank my committee chair, Jim Sibthorp, whose extensive knowledge of research as well as outdoor education practice improved the quality of this research and provided a model for my future endeavors. I'd like to thank Doug Hacker, who provided the spark that would become this dissertation by introducing me to the concept of metacognition and who subsequently fueled the fire for the research whilst sharing a tent amidst the shadow of Denali and the mountaintops of the Alaska Range. Thank you to the rest of my committee, Edward Ruddell, Karen Paisley, and Ann Darling for your encouragement and critique along the way. Thank you to the NOLS students who contributed their time and energy during your NOLS experiences; my hope is that you have left with a better understanding of "what you know and what you don't know" and will be safer, more effective outdoor educators as a result. Thank you to the NOLS instructors who invested time in the study when you were already stretched thin; your work is hard work and you deserve more than sunsets for the difference you make in your students lives. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents who instilled in me a passion for the outdoors and supported my pursuit in the atypical career path that is outdoor education. Lastly, I'd like to thank my partner, Joan, whose support was unwavering as she simultaneously completed her own Ph.D., became a mother to our daughter Devi, and brought home the bacon. Thank you. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the present era of outcome assessment and accountability, self-efficacy is a popular outcome measure in outdoor and adventure education (e.g., Davis-Berman & Berman, 1994; Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997; Paxton & McAvoy, 1998; Jones & Hinton, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs are context specific perceptions an individual possesses about a likelihood of success in future tasks (Bandura, 1986) and are related to well-being (Bunting, 2000), confidence (Propst & Kessler, 1998), and persistence (Pajares, 1997). Historically, and with few exceptions (cf. Sibthorp, 2003), the development of self-efficacy beliefs from participation in outdoor education is viewed as a positive and desirable outcome (e.g., Kimbrough, 2007). However, recent research findings in applied psychology and human performance refute the traditional view that more is better, when it comes to self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, findings indicate that these beliefs can be inaccurate and can easily become inflated (Schmidt & DeShon, 2009) resulting in decreases in motivation and performance (Moores & Chang, 2009; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Yeo & Neal, 2006). These findings clearly demonstrate that in some contexts "efficacy-enhancing interventions should be approached with caution" (Schmidt & DeShon, 2009, p. 201).Outdoor and adventure-based education is one such context to avoid the inflation of self-efficacy beliefs due to the physical 2 and educational consequences associated with failure (e.g., psychological harm, injury, or death; Martin & Priest, 1986). As such, the research contained within the present dissertation attempts to investigate, measure, and improve the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor education. The following dissertation is in the form of three distinct papers (Chapters 2, 3, and 4). Although each paper is distinct from the others, similar themes exist amongst them because they are all exploring the same construct of interest, self-efficacy beliefs, and more specifically, the accuracy of those beliefs in outdoor education. Chapter 2, "The Illusion of Competence: Inaccurate Self-Efficacy in Outdoor Leaders" broadly examines the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs from a theoretical perspective, identifies potential sources of inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs present in outdoor leadership training, and offers strategies to intervene and develop more accurate beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs are developed as a result of four sources, the most influential source being self-assessments of previous performances (also known as enactive attainments; Bandura, 1986, 2001). Unfortunately, outdoor education experiences may contain several pedagogic approaches or conditions which inadequately inform participants' self-assessments of performance. The sources in outdoor education which potentially contribute to illusions of competence (cf. Bjork, 1994) include the overprovision of success, isolated lessons of instruction, and inadequately processed experiences. In essence, these sources create conditions which fail to provide an accurate index for self-assessments and subsequently, accurate self-efficacy beliefs. Chapter 2 in the present dissertation concludes with suggested strategies to ensure the accuracy of outdoor leaders' self-efficacy beliefs such as providing a balance of opportunity for failure and success, combining skills in lessons to accurately represent future 3 contexts of application, and the adaption of components in metacognitive monitoring interventions (e.g., Hacker, Bol, Horgan, & Rakow, 2000; Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborn, 2006). Chapter 3, "The Development and Scaling of the Teaching Outdoor Education Self- Efficacy Scale", focuses on the measurement of a specific self-efficacy belief: outdoor educator teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Teacher self-efficacy beliefs in traditional classroom-based contexts have received considerable research attention; however, the scales for measurement in these contexts (e.g., The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale; Tschannen- Moran & Hoy, 2001) are not applicable to outdoor education because assessment of self-efficacy beliefs without context specificity may actually be assessment of different constructs (Hensen, 2002). Therefore, a necessary step prior to improving the accuracy of teacher self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor education (article 3) was the development of a context-specific Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy Scale (TOE-SES). Chapter 3 involved two studies addressing scale development and scale validation. Development of this scale broadly follows DeVillis' (2003) guidelines for scale development and specifically attends to Bandura's (2006) suggestions for self-efficacy scale development. Teaching outdoor education self-efficacy domains were identified through examination and consideration of various sources including the recommended outdoor leadership competencies identified by the Wilderness Education Association (Pelchat & Williams, 2009), the teacher qualification criteria from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 2010), outdoor education related research (e.g., Schumann, Paisley, Sibthorp, & Gookin, 2009) and literature (e.g., Gilbertson, et al., 2006; Gookin, 2003; Martin, Cashel, Wagstaff, & Breunig, 2006), and informal interviews with current outdoor educators and staffing directors. Ultimately, seven domains were identified that are relevant 4 to outdoor educator self-efficacy. These domains included instructional planning and assessment, instructional strategies, student engagement, outdoor classroom management, technical skill, interpersonal skill, and environmental integration. Items for each domain were developed, a factor structure was identified, and finally a proposed model fit was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. The scale developed from the research studies in Chapter 3 was used in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 in this dissertation is titled, "Improving the Accuracy of Emerging Outdoor Educator's Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs through a Metacognitive Monitoring Intervention." In general, self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with what people believe they can do with their skills and abilities amidst uncertain conditions, ambiguous information, or unpredictable circumstances (Maddux & Gosselin, 2003); these conditions are analogous to the settings in which outdoor education often occurs (Martin, et al., 2004). Though no research exists on the accuracy of outdoor educator teacher self-efficacy beliefs, research findings on traditional classroom-based teaching self-efficacy beliefs indicate they tend to be overestimations of competence when compared to instructor judgments of students' competence (Cakir & Alici, 2009; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). Consider the influence of outdoor educator's inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs: an instructor who has inaccurately high teaching self-efficacy beliefs might experiment with teaching technical outdoor skills in new ways which, extend beyond the instructors ability to manage risk (cf. Allinder, 1994); or misinformed by inflated teaching self-efficacy beliefs, he may be harmfully persistent in facilitating group discussion despite difficulties such as student readiness or lack of emotional safety (cf. Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Furthermore, attention should be paid to the development of these beliefs in the initial phases 5 of teacher training because teaching self-efficacy beliefs are malleable in the early stages of skill development and become fairly stable and resistant to change once established (Bandura, 1986). Pajares and Kranzler (1995) observed incongruence in individuals' self-efficacy beliefs and competence and suggested a need for instructional interventions which increase student's ability to calibrate the accuracy of their self-efficacy beliefs with their performance. Metacognitive monitoring interventions are one such approach (e.g., Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborn, 2006). Metacognition (Flavell, 1979) is a cognitive process which allows an individual to understand their cognitive strengths, weaknesses, and competence (or incompetence). Monitoring interventions are exercises which can develop metacognition, improve performance, and have lasting effects on participants' accuracy of self-assessments and subsequent self-efficacy beliefs (Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborn, 2006). The final study in this dissertation demonstrates application of the components of monitoring interventions to the context of outdoor educator training. Study participants participated in monitoring exercises over the progression of an outdoor educator training course. Participants predicted their performance (a self-efficacy belief) in teaching a topic, self-assessed that performance, and compared the accuracy of their predictions and self-assessments to an expert evaluation of their performance. Through the repeated processor noting the content and direction of any inaccuracies (over or underestimations) in self-efficacy beliefs and self-assessments, the intent was that the outdoor educator-in-training would integrate this information to better calibrate future self-appraisals. 6 At the conclusion of the treatment the accuracy the outdoor educators' teaching self-efficacy beliefs were compared between the treatment group and the control group (no monitoring exercises). This research is the culmination of three chapters examining the development, measurement, and improvement of, the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor education. "The call for effective educators who teach in and about the outdoors in steadily increasing" (Gilbertson, Bates, McLaughlin, & Ewert, 2006, p. vii). However, if the field of outdoor education intends to answer this call, every effort should be made to ensure that the training of outdoor educators produces the appropriate outcomes. Current practices in outdoor education need to be reconsidered in order to avoid the undesired outcome of inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs. A scale is specifically needed to measure outdoor educator teaching self-efficacy beliefs and intervention to improve the accuracy of these beliefs is warranted. The following chapters address these needs in the effort to improve outdoor educators' understandings of their strengths and weaknesses, thereby allowing them to more fully and safely teach in the outdoors. References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. 390-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. 7 Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Bjork, R.A. (1994). Institutional impediments to effective training. In D. Druckman & R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 295-306). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bunting, C. (2000, January) Outdoor adventure and health; Supportuing empirical data. In K. Fox, P. Foti, L. H. McAvoy, A. B. Young, S. Ryan, R. Johnson, & M. D. Bialeschki (Eds.), Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings: Vol. 5. (pp. 46-54). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors. Cakir, O., & Alici, D. (2009). Seeing self as others see you: cariability in self-efficacy ratings in student teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 541-561. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, July). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue (Draft for Public Comment). Washington, DC: Author. Davis-Berman, J. & Berman, D.S. (1994). Research update: Two-year follow-up report for the wilderness therapy program. Journal of Experiential Education, 17(1), 48-50. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Gilbertson, K., Bates, T., McLaughlin, T., & Ewert, A., (2006). Outdoor education: methods and strategies. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL. Gookin, J. (2003). NOLS Wilderness educator notebook. Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160- 170. Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E.(1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 43-87. Henson. R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137-150. 8 Jones, J.J., & Hinton, J.L. (2007). Study of self-efficacy in a freshman wilderness experience program: measuring general versus specific gains, Journal of Experiential Education, 30(3), 382-385. Kimbrough, S. (2007) Research update: promoting self-efficacy through play. In Parks and Recreation, 1, 24-29. Maddux, J., & Gosselin J. (2003). Self-efficacy. In M. Leary and J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218-238). New York: The Guilford Press. Martin, P., & Priest, S. (1986). Understanding the adventure experience. Journal of Adventure Education, 3(1), 18 -21. Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M., & Breunig, M. (2006). Outdoor leadership: theory and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Moores , T.T., & Cha-Jan Chang, J. (2009). Self-efficacy overconfidence, and the negative effect on subsequent performance: A field study. Information and Management, 46, 69-76. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243- 261. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159-179. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995, April). Competence and confidence in mathematics: the role of self-efficacy, self-concept, anxiety, and ability. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Paxton, T., & McAvoy, L. (1998). Self-efficacy and adventure programs: Transferring outcomes to everyday life. In K. Fox, P. Foti, L. H. McAvoy, A. B. Young, S. Ryan, R. Johnson, & M. D. Bialeschki (Eds.), Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings: Vol. 4. (pp. 32-39). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors. Pelchat, C. & Williams, M. (2009). Wilderness Education Association: Accreditation Manual. Bloomington, IL: WEA. 9 Propst, D. B., & Koesler, R. A. (1998). Bandura goes outdoors: Role of self-efficacy in the outdoor leadership development process. Leisure Sciences, 20, 319-344. Schmidt, A, & DeShon, R. (2009) Prior performance and goal progress as moderators of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Human Performance, 22, 191- 203. Schumann, S., Paisley, K., Sibthorp, J., & Gookin, J. (2009). Instructor influences on student learning at NOLS. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 1(1/3). Sibthorp, J. (2003). An empirical look at Walsh and Golins' adventure education process model: Relationships between antecedent factors, perceptions of characteristics of an adventure education experience, and changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(1), 80-106. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146-1153. Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1088-1101. CHAPTER II THE ILLUSION OF COMPETENCE: INCREASING SELF-EFFICACY IN OUTDOOR LEADERS Abstract The development of self-efficacy from participation in adventure education is consistently viewed as a positive and desirable outcome. However, recent research (e.g., Schmidt & DeShon, 2009) outside the field of outdoor leadership and adventure education has called into question the assumption of a consistently positive relationship between increased self-efficacy and subsequent behavior. In some cases, self-efficacy beliefs can be overinflated and result in inappropriate selection of behaviors, acceptance of risk, and decreased performance. This has particular relevance for outdoor leaders because inaccurate or inflated efficacy beliefs carry dire consequences in outdoor settings (Martin & Priest, 1985). Several conditions present in outdoor leadership training may contribute to inflated or inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs. These include the overprovision of success, isolated lessons of instruction, and inadequately processed experiences. Each of these conditions represents a source for inaccurate self-assessments which contribute to inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs and potentially, detrimental outdoor leadership behaviors. Solutions to the conditions which create outdoor leaders' illusions of competence (cf., Bjork, 1994) include providing a balance 11 of opportunity for failure and success, combining skills in lessons to accurately represent future contexts of application, and the adaption of metacognitive monitoring interventions. Introduction In an era of outcome assessment and accountability, self-efficacy is a popular outcome measure in outdoor leadership and adventure education (Davis-Berman & Berman, 1989, 1994; Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997; Jones & Hinton, 2007; Paxton & McAvoy, 1998; Sibthorp, 2003). The development of self-efficacy from participation in adventure education is consistently viewed as a positive and desirable outcome (e.g., Kimbrough, 2007). However, recent research outside the field of outdoor leadership and adventure education has called into question the assumption of a consistently positive relationship between increased self-efficacy and subsequent behavior (e.g., Schmidt & DeShon, 2009). In some cases, self-efficacy beliefs can be overinflated and result in inappropriate selection of behaviors, acceptance of risk, and decreased performance. In addition, several pedagogic approaches present in outdoor leadership training may contribute to inflated or inaccurate (i.e., overestimated or underestimated) self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the importance of accurate self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor leaders, identify the sources of inaccurate efficacy beliefs present in outdoor leadership training, and offer strategies to intervene and develop more accurate beliefs. "Efficacy beliefs are the foundation of human agency" (Bandura, 2001, p.10). Self-efficacy beliefs influence the challenges individuals choose to undertake in similar settings in which the beliefs were developed (Pajares, 1997, 2008), as well as, influence thoughts and 12 behaviors beyond the original contexts (Paxton & McAvoy, 1998).1 Specifically, self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with what people believe they can do with their skills and abilities amidst conditions where circumstances are uncertain, ambiguous, or unpredictable (Maddux &Gosselin, 2003). Outdoor leadership contexts commonly possess these conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability thus, making self-efficacy beliefs particularly important. In essence, self-efficacy beliefs are future-oriented perceptions of competence that influence the approach or avoidance of tasks amidst uncertainty (Bandura, 1986). Self-Efficacy in Outdoor Leadership Considering the influence of self-efficacy beliefs on behavior, it is not surprising that outdoor leadership and adventure-based researchers have paid significant attention to their development. Sibthorp (2003) notes the congruencies between efficacy belief development and adventure education models "make an adventure experience ideal for self-efficacy development" (p. 88). Findings from Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards' (1997) meta-analysis indicated significant positive effects on the development of self-efficacy from participation in adventure and outdoor leadership programs. Bunting (2000) contends that increases in self-efficacy from participation in adventure-based programs contribute to psychological well-being and subsequently, overall health. It is generally accepted that self-efficacy gains in one adventure-based setting will translate into a similar adventure-based 1 Behavior is certainly influenced by a multitude of factors reaching beyond Bandura's (1977, 2001) social cognitive theory. A useful conceptualization of this complex web of variables can be found in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,1991). Self-efficacy is but one of the constructs present in the theory, other salient influences include perceived behavioral control, locus of control, and normative beliefs. In addition, constructs not addressed by Ajzen but that have been considered important to behavioral decisions include those referred to as controlled, automated, and cognitive processes (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). 13 settings (Propst & Koesler, 1998). For example, perceptions of paddling competence in one setting may influence perceptions of paddling competence in another setting. Nearly unanimously, authors of adventure-based literature view the development of self-efficacy beliefs as positive and desirable (e.g., Kimbrough, 2007). In light of this view, there is a substantial dearth of adventure-based research regarding either the accuracy in the development of self-efficacy beliefs or the subsequent benefits of increased self-efficacy beliefs in the outdoor leadership context. A lone exception comes from Sibthorp (2003) who warns, "Increased self-efficacy is far from a panacea" (p. 88). Accuracy of Self-Efficacy Beliefs The accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs is critical in the outdoor leadership context. Outdoor leader self-efficacy beliefs, which are overestimations or underestimations of a likelihood of success, carry consequences for student safety and learning. For example, a leader may be presented with an opportunity to lead a group across technical mountain terrain; if her self-efficacy beliefs are overestimations of her likelihood to succeed, she may risk student safety and the possible consequences include injury or death (Martin & Priest, 1985; Priest, 1993). Between 1951 and 2007, overestimation of one's ability was the second most common contributing factor to the number of climbing accidents (905) in the United States; the first was climbing unroped, arguably another overestimation of ability (American Alpine Club, 2009). Conversely, if the outdoor leader underestimates her likelihood of success and avoids the challenge (i.e., technical terrain) she may deprive the students of a learning opportunity to experience safe travel on technical ground. 14 The consequences of inaccurate efficacy beliefs are not exclusive to the technical aspects of outdoor leadership. Regarding facilitation, processing, or teaching, a leader may need to assess her competence and predict the likelihood that she can effectively debrief a failed summit attempt or teach strategies to resolve conflict (Priest & Gass, 2007). Overinflated efficacy beliefs may cause the leader to attempt facilitating a discussion beyond her ability, possibly resulting in psychological damage to her participants. Conversely, she may underestimate her competence in the future task, avoid processing the event, and fail to provide a valuable learning opportunity. In sum, the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs is an important consideration amidst the myriad of tasks an effective outdoor leader must perform. Though no research has been conducted in outdoor leadership or adventure education on the topic, authors in educational and applied Psychology have recently explored the importance of accurate self-efficacy beliefs, examined the consequences of inflated beliefs, and identified a cause for inaccurate beliefs. Historically, research findings have found the conventional positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance when examined statistically between persons (i.e., relating overall self-efficacy of all participants, to overall performance of all participants); however, a negative relationship is observed when examining the within person variance over time (i.e., comparing an individual to themselves over several performances; Richard, Diefendorff, & Martin, 2006; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001; Yeo & Neal, 2006). Simply stated, the overall positive relationship was overshadowing negative relationships for some individuals; increases in efficacy did not always indicate increases in performance. Vancouver and colleagues (2001, 2002) found increases in self-efficacy can eventually exert a progressively smaller and potentially 15 negative influence on performance. The authors explain that high self-efficacy beliefs can translate to overconfidence, complacency, and inaccurate perceptions of progress towards a goal; the result is a decrease in resource allocation, motivation, and performance. Vancouver et al.'s findings came under considerable criticism (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003); however, the results have been critically examined and replicated by other researchers (Moores & Cha- Jan Chang, 2009; Schmidt & Deshon, 2009; Yeo & Neal, 2006). In general, recent research findings refute the adage "more is better" in the context of self-efficacy beliefs. Schmidt & DeShon (2009) found that "following poor or substandard performance, self-efficacy was positively related to subsequent performance. However, following more successful prior performances, self-efficacy was negatively related to subsequent performance [italics added]" (p. 198). For a significant amount of participants, as self-efficacy increased, performance actually decreased. Interestingly, the authors observed the relationship between self-efficacy and subsequent performance was moderated by the degree of prior success. Recent findings point to the importance of continual self-assessment of competence in the effort to avoid the over-inflation of efficacy-beliefs (Moores & Cha-Jan Chang, 2009; Schmidt & DeShon, 2009). This is consistent with Bandura (1977, 1986) who explains, of the four sources contributing to the development of efficacy beliefs, self-assessments of past performances are the largest contributing factor. It should further be noted, efficacy beliefs are formed based on self-assessments of performance regardless of their accuracy. For example, if an outdoor leader makes an assessment of competently climbing a rock face, though he was assisted up the crux by his belayer, the resulting inaccurate self-assessment of performance may translate to an inflated self-efficacy belief. 16 Outdoor leadership is a context to avoid the inflation of efficacy beliefs due to the physical and educational consequences associated with failure. Where conditions are controlled and risk is managed, failure can be instructive (Nicolazzo, 2004), yet in other conditions, failure can result in physical and psychological damage (Martin& Priest, 1985). Outdoor leadership training programs which intend to develop outdoor leaders should pay particular attention to the accuracy of self-assessments in order keep outdoor leader self-efficacy beliefs and subsequent behaviors in check. Accuracy of Self-Assessments Individuals generally overrate themselves compared to their actual knowledge or behavior. No research to date has been conducted on the accuracy of self-assessments in outdoor leadership or adventure education contexts; however, the accuracy of self-assessment has received substantial attention in related fields such as, human performance and education (e.g., Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). Unfortunately, individual's notions of their skill and cognitive capacity often do not correlate with their performance (Bjork, 1994, 1999; Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). For example, students' ratings of their academic skills in the first year of college only correlate at .35 with their instructors evaluations of student skill (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001), people's views of their intelligence correlates less than .3 with performance on intelligence tests (Hansford & Hattie, 1982), and in situations where feedback or standards might not be readily available (e.g., leadership competence or interpersonal skills) correlations are less than .18 (Mabe & West, 1982). 17 Dunning et al. (2004) illustrate the importance of accurate self-assessment and the resultant behaviors by noting: To the degree that people judge themselves accurately, they make decisions, big and small, that lead to better lives. However, to the extent that people misjudge themselves, they may suffer costly consequences by pursuing wrong paths and missing opportunities to take advantage of special skills and resources they truly own… at times the consequences of flawed self-assessment can be severe, as in the case of the novice airplane pilot who thinks he can take off into fog without his flight instructor's supervision. (p. 70) Furthermore, the consequences of inaccurate self-assessment, self-efficacy beliefs, and behaviors are not constrained to the self. For example, an outdoor leader too assured of her ability to build a climbing anchor exposes other climbers to risks that might be life threatening. The accuracy of efficacy beliefs and the corresponding appropriateness of the subsequent choices an outdoor leader makes hinges upon the accuracy of her self-assessments (Bandura, 1986; Winne & Hadwinn, 1988). Thus, outdoor leadership training is a context in which the accuracy of self-assessment should be a priority and self-efficacy-enhancement should be approached with caution. Sources of Inaccurate Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Outdoor Leadership Training One of the many goals of outdoor leadership programs is to train outdoor leaders in a variety of technical and interpersonal skills and develop a leader's "ability to accurately self-assess" (Pelchat & Williams, 2009, p. 36). It is useful to attend to self-assessment accuracy and self-efficacy beliefs in the early stages of outdoor leader self-efficacy development. Self-efficacy beliefs are malleable early on due to the limited number of prior self-assessments (Bandura, 1986). Accordingly, because the number of self-assessments increases over an 18 outdoor leader's career self-efficacy beliefs become fairly stable and resistant to change once established. Paradoxically, several mechanisms present in adventure education and outdoor leadership programs may lead to outdoor leaders' inaccurate self-assessments and subsequently, inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs. As such, the following will bring particular attention to sources which contribute to the proximal outcome of inaccurate self-assessment because of the contribution self-assessment has upon the distal outcome of self-efficacy beliefs. It should be noted however, various participant, trait-based psychological sources of inaccurate self-assessments are incidentally "brought" to outdoor leadership programs. For example, attributional style (Graham & Weiner, 1996) is a dispositional tendency for people to attribute the causes of success or failure to themselves (e.g., "I am a skilled") or circumstances outside themselves (e.g., "the rock was wet" or "the sun was in my eyes").Though not the focus of this paper, it is important to remember that such dispositional sources of inaccurate self-assessment are thought to be relatively stable and likely to exist amidst the following programmatic sources of inaccurate self-assessment. The Provision of Success A potential source of inaccurate self-assessments resulting in inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs which is present in outdoor leadership training is the provision of success. Bjork (1994) points out the importance of introducing difficulties to the learner in order to make the experience a more accurate index for assessment. In essence, too much success and not enough opportunity for error might mislead the learner into an illusion of competence. The author goes on to explain that failures more effectively inform the learner of future 19 conditions of practice and give a more comprehensive perspective of ability and limits. McKenzie's (2000) review of how adventure education program outcomes are achieved also emphasizes the importance of building a balance of success and failure into activities and programs. Nonetheless, it seems that the adventure-based and outdoor leadership literature possesses a considerable bias towards success. Walsh and Golins (1976) devote particular time describing the steps necessary to maximize the students' potential for success. Kimball and Bacon (1993) explain that adventure education activities are typically "structured so that success and mastery are not only possible, but probable" (p. 21). Lastly, Bisson (1998) conducted a comprehensive examination of sequencing in adventure education and categorized the final stage of sequenced adventure activities as "group achievement" (p. 210). Perhaps at first glance, the provision of success would seem to be a preferred strategy resulting in increased confidence, esteem, and efficacy; however as noted earlier the unchecked development of self-efficacy beliefs specifically in the context of outdoor leadership has been drawn into question. Is it possible that a "benevolent" outdoor leadership instructor, intending to develop future outdoor leaders' confidence, might provide a disproportioned number of opportunities for success? For example, in the process of teaching orienteering an instructor may repeatedly choose locations with easily identifiable topographic features (i.e., defined ridgelines, deep valleys, and clearly defined summits). Each time, the students quickly develop an understanding of the relationship of the map to the field. Success comes relatively easily, perhaps too easily. Subsequently, the outdoor leadership students may be provided a "challenge" to apply their orienteering skills and navigate through mountainous terrain toward an open meadow in a valley below. In reality, the contours of the terrain make 20 it difficult to miss the meadow. After arrival in the meadow, based upon their success, the students might assess themselves as competent in orienteering. However, the repeated provision of success failed to provide information on the limits of their skill, may contribute to illusions of competence in their ability (Bjork, 1994), and contribute to inflated self-efficacy beliefs. Isolated Lessons of Instruction Sometimes referred to as massed training (Glenberg, 1979), this approach involves isolating each skill and training them individually, as opposed to intermingling the skills in an effort to more accurately represent the context to which the skill will be transferred. Simon and Bjork (2001) found that individuals who learned skills in an intense block of instruction which did not accurately represent the complex nature of the tasks in the real context were significantly outperformed by the groups who learned the task in an environment which more accurately represented the transfer context. The isolated skill group actually learned the skill faster but consistently made more overly optimistic predictions of their subsequent performance. Dunning et al. (2003b) aptly explained this error by noting, "Short-term excellence is mistaken for long term competence" (p. 87). Several examples of this approach are apparent in current adventure-based texts (Drury, Bonney, Berman, & Wagstaff, 2005; Stremba & Bisson, 2009; Wagstaff & Attarian, 2009). In a chapter on sea kayak skill development Holden (2009) provides a single intense lesson to teach an "eskimo bow rescue." Whilst in calm water, the paddler intentionally flips her boat upside down, waits, and moves her hands back and forth along her hull, while another boater brings his bow to the side of the capsized boat, finally, she reaches up to grab 21 the bow and rights herself without exiting the kayak cockpit. The author's follow-up activity is to perform this task again at an unannounced time in a protected area. Though the follow-up is nearing an accurate representation of the real context it is only until the participant is required to perform in the real context that she will have accurate information to base her self-assessment upon. Anyone who has experienced success learning the similar skill of an Eskimo roll in a pool understands this misperception of ability when they attempt their first Eskimo roll in actual surf. Without subsequent practice in real conditions the participant may falsely believe she has the competence in this skill (Wilde, 1998). The result may be misinformed skill-efficacy beliefs leading her to subsequently believe she can perform this skill if necessary in a leadership context. Processing of Experiences Processing of experiences is an inherent component in the training of outdoor leaders which may contribute to inaccurate self-assessments and subsequent self-efficacy beliefs. Any model of experiential or adventure-based education contains the essential element of experience (e.g., Kolb, 1984; McKenzie, 2003; Walsh & Golins, 1976). Outdoor leaders-in-training are provided experiences, from which they can learn, grow and develop understandings of themselves and the world around them (Hunt, 1999). Sugerman, Doherty, Garvey, and Gass (2000) define processing as a cognitive process where people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over, and evaluate it. Often times, it is not possible to formally process every experience, or by intention, some experiences are left to the participant to make meaning from independently; this is known as letting the experience speak for itself (Gass & Stevens, 2007). In addition, debriefing without sufficient 22 frontloading has been found to inadequately inform or assist participants in making meaning from experiences (Paisley, Sibthorp, & Jorgenson, 2006). These mechanisms leave the onus on the student to make sense of her experience, assess her competence, and develop self-efficacy beliefs with limited or inaccurate information. Some participants,in fact, come more equipped than others to accurately self-assess their experiences. Research findings have shown that individuals in the lower performing quartiles of ability ranges consistently overestimate their performance (Hodges, Regehr, & Martin, 2001; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). For example, performers of debates have been shown to consistently overestimate if they were winning a debate and they were just as likely to inaccurately evaluate who was winning debates they were not participating in. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts including test taking, medical skills, and laboratory technicians (for a review, see Erhlinger, et al., 2008). One hypothesis regarding the lower quartile's consistent lack of self-assessment accuracy is that persons in this range possess the least amount of ability, and correspondingly, lack the knowledge of what adequate performance is. Simply stated, these individuals are unskilled and unaware despite performance feedback amidst their experience (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). In the context of outdoor leadership training, a student may be asked to facilitate the process of problem solving for an important group decision (e.g., to set up camp rather than continue on late into the night to reach a food cache). The leader-in-training might meagerly facilitate a solution: he neglects to comprehensively gather information about the route, fails to see viable alternatives, and weights his own desires heavier than his peers'. Ultimately he facilitates a decision to continue on towards the cache. Due to the lateness in the day, upon reaching the cache, the course instructor might direct attention towards other tasks such as 23 establishing camp. The following morning may be too hectic reorganizing food and gear to fully process the evening's events. By default, the leader-in-training is left to process the experience independently. As a novice, the student lacks an understanding of the complexity and multiphasic nature of problem solving and decision-making (i.e., Priest & Gass, 2005) yet, based on what seemed to be the achievement of a decision, the student may assess himself as competent in problem solving and decision-making. The result may be a future outdoor leader with an inadequately informed self-assessment and overestimated self-efficacy beliefs. Though accurate self-assessment is a desired goal of outdoor leadership trainings, programmatic efforts such as the provision of success, isolated instructional lessons, and poorly or unguided processing of experiences might contribute to inaccurate self-assessments leading to inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs and inappropriate behaviors in outdoor leadership. Further, those who possess inflated self-efficacy beliefs pose a particular danger to themselves and those they lead in the outdoors. Strategies to Develop Accurate Self-Efficacy Beliefs Balanced Provision of Opportunity for Failure and Success The intentional provision of opportunities for both failure and success may be a viable solution to limit the development of inaccurate outdoor leader self-efficacy beliefs. Nicolazzo's (2004) site management theoryprovides a concept for application of such an approach in outdoor leadership training: "stationary sites" (p. 12). Stationary sites are those which can be limited by physical boundaries (such as a top roped-climbing site or the bottom of a rapid), hazards can be identified and minimized by the instructors, instructors can stop 24 all action at a moment's notice, and students can be "tested to failure" (p. 13). Although the original application of site management is intended to provide instructors with an opportunity to assess their students' skill, the use of stationary sites also provides the student (i.e., an outdoor leader-in-training) an opportunity to experience the limits of his competence. An example of providing a balance of between opportunities for failure and success in a stationary site may be as simple as setting up a rock climbing site which contains routes all students can climb and also routes beyond their abilities. Additional examples might include allowing an outdoor leader-in-training to become "lost" while attempting to lead a group of students in a simulated leadership experience or allow the leader-in-training to fail in facilitating the decision-making process and experience the consequences (e.g., group frustration or conflict) without intervention from the instructor. The opportunity for "natural consequences" is one of the assets of outdoor and adventure-based education; however, how often are they intentionally utilized? In exchange for developing confidence, opportunities for failure might be unnecessarily limited. Authentic experiences with consequences provide a genuine opportunity for failure and self-assessment of competence. Although the concept of stationary sites is primarily applied to technical skills (e.g., paddling, route-finding) where risk can be sufficiently managed for failure to occur, application of the concept to non-technical contexts (e.g., interpersonal or leadership) may be equally as beneficial. Combining Skills to Accurately Represent Future Context Training outdoor leaders in conditions which accurately represent the complexity of the context where skills will be transferred may also reduce the likelihood of inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs. In order for learners to gain an accurate sense of their competence in a 25 particular skill they must be subjected to the conditions in which they will later be required to perform (Simon & Bjork, 2001). Of course, this is not always possible in the outdoor leadership context for a variety of reasons such as time constraints or risk management. Quite often, time constraints do not allow for an outdoor leadership student to practice all of their skills in a variety of realistic contexts. This is to no fault of the leadership training; however, students should be provided information regarding where their skills are at on a continuum upon completion of a course. Did the course end at an introductory level? Are their skills relatively advanced in relation to the challenges in the field? Regarding risk management, no instructor would think it is appropriate to capsize an outdoor leader-in-training's canoe above a real, life threatening, unmanageable hazard in order to create a more accurate training environment. However, when possible, and after students have developed proficiency in basic skills, allowing them to integrate all of the skills may help to more adequately inform them of their competence. Ensuring that risk can be managed (e.g., a stationary site; Nicolazzo, 2004), an outdoor leadership course instructor may choose to combine several skills into a single practice session, rather than leaving previously taught skills isolated (as discussed earlier). For example, students may be provided an opportunity to test their abilities in a gauntlet-style challenge. Utilizing a scouted section of whitewater, with accessible eddies and rescuers positioned with throw bags, a student may be allowed to paddle the rapid, intentionally capsize, attempt a "combat roll," wet exit the kayak, aggressively swim towards the river bank, and conclude with attempting to surmount a partially submerged log (which is set up on a quick-release in the event of failure to vault over the log). Combining these skills in a 26 safe environment allows the outdoor leader-in-training to understand how difficult the individual tasks become when they are combined. A non-technical illustration of combining skills could take place in the effort to teach leaders-in-training how to provide feedback. A common practice in outdoor leadership training is the leader-of-the-day (LOD) experience, in which a student is asked to lead her peers throughout an entire day; debriefing the LOD at the conclusion of the day is often a way for students to develop their skills at providing feedback (Gookin, 2003). However, providing feedback in an isolated instance at the conclusion of the day does not sufficiently represent the context in which students will provide feedback when they become leaders. An approach which more accurately represents the subsequent conditions leaders might operate in, could involve providing feedback throughout the day. An instructor might assign two students to provide formative feedback to the LOD during the day, in addition to summative feedback at the conclusion of their peer's LOD experience. This approach would require the students to employ interpersonal skills as they navigate their relationship with a leader-of-the- day, select appropriate times to provide feedback, select the most salient pieces of information to provide, and structure the feedback in a manner which is accessible. Thus, combining skills and creating an integrated context provides future outdoor leaders with an accurate index to base self-assessments of competence and self-efficacy beliefs upon. Metacognitive Monitoring Interventions Metacognitive Monitoring Interventions (MMIs) are a strategy which can assist in the interpretation and processing of experiences through a series of actions focused on developing an awareness of performance and competence. These interventions can be 27 considered highly structured forms of processing. By intention, the issue of inadequate processing of experiences is the final solution addressed in this paper because, even if the previous strategies are employed, some outdoor leaders-in-training may still fail to accurately self-assess their competence. For this reason, metacognitive monitoring interventions will be described in greater detail due to their potential to more deeply and comprehensively develop accurate self-efficacy beliefs. Paul Petzoldt, the founder of the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) and the Wilderness Education Association (WEA), was well known for telling his students "know what you know and what you don't know" (Wagstaff, 2005, p. 6). The notion of knowledge about the knowledge and skills an outdoor leader possesses is known to psychologists as metacognition (Flavell, 1979). It is the act of having a thought about one's own thinking or cognitive abilities. Metacognition has particular relevance in outdoor leadership contexts because leaders are required to not only perform physical tasks (e.g., climbing or paddling) but also cognitive tasks or metaskills such as problem solving, decision making, or teaching (Gookin, 2003; Priest & Gass, 2005). Metacognition pertains specifically to the cognitive processes required to accurately assess one's current state of knowledge and cognitive ability. Essentially, metacognition is thinking about what you know and are cognitively capable of. An example in the context of outdoor leadership might clarify the concept of metacognition. Imagine a leader is selecting a location for a river crossing. She must assess her ability to successfully orchestrate the crossing. She will need to select an appropriate location (e.g., river flow, depth, and consequences), manage environmental considerations (e.g., hypothermia), manage the group, and select an appropriate strategy (a dry crossing on a 28 log or a wet crossing in the water). She surmises she has had difficulty managing this particular group under stressful circumstances. Previously, she noticed she had neglected the technical aspects in front of her, in exchange for managing the easily-distracted group of participants. She decides that the wet crossing will be too complex of a cognitive task for her to manage, potentially requiring multiple people in the water at once amidst technical rope work. She opts to continue downstream and finds a suitable crossing on a log, which, she believes is within her capacity to manage. It should be noted that this example is not a purely metacognitive act, per se, due to the monitoring of external stimuli (how strong is the current, how high is the river, etc…). However, the scenario demonstrates the influence of metacognition; the leader's assessment of her cognitive capacity (i.e., she could not manage the group amidst technical challenge). Ultimately, this influenced her behavior to continue downstream toward a manageable river crossing. She knew what she was, and was not, capable of doing and this influenced her leadership behavior. Metacognition can be developed through metacognitive monitoring interventions (Hacker, Bol, Bahbani, 2008). Furthermore, these interventions have been shown to successfully reduce inaccurate self-assessments, increase performance, and influence the development of accurate self-efficacy beliefs (Nietfield, Cao, & Osborn, 2006). Metacognitive monitoring interventions can effectively minimize the overestimation of ability in lower quartile performers (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). This evidence points to the utility of a monitoring intervention in outdoor leadership training where the experience is often allowed to "speak for itself" or is perhaps insufficiently debriefed and participants are 29 left to their own cognitive capacities to make meaning and self-assessments (e.g., Sugerman, et al. 2000). Though, typically, conducted in the context of purely cognitive tasks, the application of the components of metacognitive monitoring interventions may improve the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor leadership skills containing both cognitive and physical tasks. In a sense, the following example is simply a monitoring intervention with metacognitive characteristics intending to influence various domains of self-assessment (e.g., cognitive and physical) and ultimately, self-efficacy beliefs. Readers of this application might see similarities to current practices (e.g., Gookin, 2003); however, the process described below involves not only feedback after an individual's performance but also involves feedback on the accuracy of a student's own prediction of performance, accuracy of a student's post-performance evaluation (postdiction), provides a format for identification of areas needing further development, and provides an incentive for the accuracy of self-assessment. Utilization of these components has been found to create durable changes in individuals' accuracy of self-assessments (Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003). A monitoring intervention to increase outdoor leaders' accuracy of self-assessments and resulting self-efficacy beliefs can take place amidst an outdoor leadership training course. Beginning prior to a specific leadership opportunity (e.g., teaching a skill or leading an activity) the leader-in-training could be asked to predict her performance using a rubric for the task. The prediction of her own performance represents her self-efficacy belief in the task. At the conclusion of her leadership experience, she would evaluate her performance on the rubric again. In addition, the instructors complete the rubric evaluating her performance. Subsequently, the leader-in-training compares her prediction of her performance and post- 30 performance self-assessment to the instructor completed form of the rubric.2 The process of comparing predictions and self-assessments to an objective assessment provides information for the participant to understand how well her self-efficacy beliefs, are calibrated (i.e., are the over or underestimated?)and provide information to ensure that the students self-assessment of the experience is accurate which will translate to future self-efficacy beliefs. Lastly, an incentive to accurately self-assess her performance could be provided by tying the accuracy of the student's predictions and self-assessments to a point system which contributes to the student's final evaluation or grade for the course (Hacker, et al., 2008; Schraw, et al., 1993). In addition to the information on the accuracy of her prediction and self-assessment, a guided reflective process serves to supplement the leader's understanding of areas of strength and those needing improvement. Using the instructor completed rubric, the participant could be guided through a reflection (via journaling prompts) to identify areas where her performance in the skill is strong or needs further development, identify specific strategies for improvement, and importantly, take note of discrepancies between her self-assessments and the objective score. This journal could be debriefed with an instructor to clarify or assist in the monitoring process. This process should be repeated throughout an outdoor leadership course allowing time for the intervention to have a durable influence on the participant (Hacker, et al., 2000). The current practice of debriefing participants and allowing feedback from their peers can, and should still occur, as these practices have value for the group process. 2 Perhaps the crux in the application of these interventions from traditional settings to outdoor leadership is the provision of objective evaluation. Previous interventions have provided feedback from performance on knowledge tests in which assessment of performance was unambiguous, that is, whether or not she provided the correct response to a question. A two-pronged solution to this issue is the development of valid rubrics for evaluation of performance and the creation of a composite score from several sources such as, each of the course instructors. 31 The above monitoring intervention has the potential to create durable changes in the participant's ability to accurately self-assess (Nietfeld, et al., 2006). Over time, the participant would be able to observe how well her self-assessment is calibrated, make appropriate adjustments, and apply this new knowledge in future outdoor leadership experiences. The result, for example, is an outdoor leader who can more accurately judge his likelihood of success in facilitating delicate discussion or teaching a difficult technical skill. Further, based on a new understanding of his competencies, he may more effectively manage his time and chose to practice the skills needing further development (Tobias & Everson, 2009). Conclusion The importance of accurate self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor leadership cannot be overstated. Perceptions of one's likelihood of success influence the challenges we choose to approach and avoid (Bandura, 1986, 1977; Winne & Hadwinn, 1988). At times, self-efficacy beliefs can be inflated or inaccurate and result in decreases in motivation and performance. However, the literature in adventure education and outdoor leadership training has neglected to recognize the importance of accurate self-efficacy beliefs. Instead, outdoor leadership and adventure-based literature contains a consistently positive view towards the increase of participants' self-efficacy beliefs. Yet, due to physical and psychological consequences, outdoor leadership is a setting in which self-efficacy-enhancement should be approached with caution. The most influential source of efficacy belief development is self-assessments. The accuracy of outdoor leaders' self-assessments influences the accuracy of the subsequent self- 32 efficacy beliefs. Unfortunately, the presence of inaccurate self-assessment is prevalent in society and likely present in outdoor leaders. However, several programmatic aspects of outdoor leadership training such as the provision of success, isolated skill instruction, and inadequate processing may contribute to self-assessment inaccuracies and in turn, inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs. Several solutions to minimize inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor leadership training exist. Application of the stationary site concept (Nicolazzo, 2004) is a possible strategy to balance the provision of opportunities for success and failure. Through combination of these experiences students are able to gain valuable information regarding the limits of their abilities. Secondly, combining skills to more accurately represent the later contexts of skill application may provide students with a more complete index for self-efficacy belief development. Lastly, an intentionally designed monitoring intervention which informs outdoor leaders of the accuracy of their self-efficacy beliefs and self-assessments may be a useful strategy for training outdoor leaders. Ultimately, implementation of these strategies may help to avoid inaccurate increases in self-efficacy beliefs thereby, reducing outdoor leaders' illusions of competence and allowing them to more fully and safely, lead others in the outdoors. References Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. American Alpine Club (2009). Statistical Tables. In Accidents in North American Mountaineering, 10(4), 89-94. Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. 390-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 33 Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bandura, A. B. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99. Benjamin, A.S., Bjork, R.A., & Schwartz, B.L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68. Bjork, R.A. (1994). Institutional impediments to effective training. In D. Druckman & R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 295-306). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bjork, R.A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bunting, C. (2000, January) Outdoor adventure and health; Supportuing empirical data. In K. Fox, P. Foti, L. H. McAvoy, A. B. Young, S. Ryan, R. Johnson, & M. D. Bialeschki (Eds.), Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings: Vol. 5. (pp. 46-54). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55-64. Cockrell, D.E. (1990). Changes in self-efficacy through outdoor skills instruction, In A. T. Easley, J. F. Passineau, & B. L. Driver, (Eds.), The use of wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and education (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-193, pp. 35-37). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Davis-Berman, J. & Berman, D.S. (1994). Research update: Two-year follow-up report for the wilderness therapy program. Journal of Experiential Education, 17(1), 48-50. Davis-Berman, J., & Berman, D. (1996). Using the wilderness to facilitate adjustment to college: An updated description of wilderness orientation programs. The Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 22-28. 34 Drury, J., Bonney, B., Berman, D., & Wagstaff, M. (2005). The backcountry classroom. Helena, MT: Globe Pequot. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalf, J., (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunning, D., Heath, C. & Suls, J. ( 2003). Flawed self-assessment. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83-86. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Gass, M. A. (1999). Transfer of learning in adventure education. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), adventure education (pp.199-208). State College, PA: Venture. Glenberg, A.M. (1979). Component-level theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95-112. Gookin, J. (2003). NOLS Wilderness educator notebook. Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M.C. (2008) Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky and R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 429-457). New York: Taylor and Francis. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160- 170. Hacker, D.J., Bol, L., & Bahbahni, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition Learning,3, 101-121. Hansford, B.C., & Hattie, J.A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement-performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123-142. Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E.(1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 43-87. 35 Hodges, B., Regehr, G., & Martin, D. (2001). Difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence: Novice physicians who are unskilled and unaware of it. Academic Medicine, 76, S87-S89. Holden, T. (2009). Sea Kayaking. In M. Wagstaff and A. Attarian (Eds.) Technical skills in adventure programming: A curriculum guide (pp. 329-412). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hunt, J. S. (1999). Philosophy of adventure education. In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.). Adventure programming (pp. 123-131). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Jones, J.J., & Hinton, J.L. (2007). Study of self-efficacy in a freshman wilderness experience program: measuring general versus specific gains, Journal of Experiential Education, 30(3), 382-385. Kimball, R. O. & Bacon, S. B. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In M.A. Gass (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 11-41). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Kimbrough, S. (2007) Research update: promoting self-efficacy through play. In Parks and Recreation, 1, 24-27. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134. Mabe, P.A., III,& West, S.G. (1982).Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-286. Maddux, J., & Gosselin J. (2003). Self-efficacy. In M. Leary and J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218-238). New York: The Guilford Press. Martin, P., & Priest, S. (1986). Understanding the adventure experience. Journal of Adventure Education, 3(1), 18 -21. McKenzie, M. (2003). Beyond "the Outward Bound process:" Rethinking student learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 8-23. 36 McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 19-28. Moores , T.T., & Cha-Jan Chang, J. (2009). Self-efficacy overconfidence, and the negative effect on subsequent performance: A field study. Information and Management, 46, 69-76. Nicolazzo. P. (2004). Risk and site management in outdoor education and recreation. Winthrop, WA: Nicolazzo. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131-142. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 7-28. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159-179. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 10 (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-139).New York: Taylor and Francis. Paisley, K., Sibthorp, J., and Jorgensen, L. J.(2006). Making your point: the impact of processing techniques on classroom activities. SCHOLE. Paxton, T., & McAvoy, L. (1998). Self-efficacy and adventure programs: Transferring outcomes to everyday life. In K. Fox, P. Foti, L. H. McAvoy, A. B. Young, S. Ryan, R. Johnson, & M. D. Bialeschki (Eds.), Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings: Vol. 4. (pp. 32-39). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors. Pelchat, C. & Williams, M. (2009). The Wilderness Education Association Affiliate Handbook. Bloomington, IN: WEA. Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1995). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics. 37 Priest, S. (1999). The semantics of adventure programming. In J.C. Miles and S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 109-114), State College, PA: Venture. Propst, D. B., & Koesler, R. A. (1998). Bandura goes outdoors: Role of self-efficacy in the outdoor leadership development process. Leisure Sciences, 20, 319-344. Richard, E. M., Diefendorff, J. M., & Martin, J. H. (2006). Revisiting the within-person self-efficacy and performance relation. Human Performance, 19, 67-87. Schmidt, A, & DeShon, R. (2009) Prior performance and goal progress as moderators of the relatinshipbetween self-efficacy and performance. Human Performance, 22, 191-203. Schneider, W., Vise, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson, T.O. (2000). Developmental trends in children's memory monitoring: Evidence from a judgment-of-learning (JOL) task. Cognitive Development, 15, 115-134. Schraw, G., Potenza, M. T., & Nebelsick-Gullet, L. (1993). Constraints on the calibration of performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455-463. Sibthorp, J. (2003). An empirical look at Walsh and Golins' adventure education process model: Relationships between antecedent factors, perceptions of characteristics of an adventure education experience, and changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(1), 80-106. Simon, D.A., & Bjork, R.A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 907-912. Stremba, B. & Bisson, C. (2009). Teaching adventure education theory: Best practices. Champaigne, IL: Human Kinetics. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66 - 73. Tobias, S. & Everson, H. (2009) The importance of knowing what you know. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. Graesser (Eds.) Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 107 - 127). New York: Routledge. Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146-1153. Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605-620. 38 Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506-516. Wagstaff, M. & Attarian A. (2009) Technical skills in adventure programming: A curriculum guide. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Walsh, V., Golins, G. (1976). The exploration of the Outward Bound process. Denver: Colorado Outward Bound School. Winne, P. & Hadwin, A. (1988). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1088-1101. CHAPTER 3 THE DEVELOPMENT AND SCALING OF THE TEACHING OUTDOOR EDUCATION SELF-EFFICACY SCALE Abstract Outdoor educator teaching self-efficacy beliefs are important to the process of teaching in the outdoors. Errors in these self-beliefs, which are one's judgments of ability to successfully perform necessary teaching tasks, carry consequences for student learning and safety in outdoor contexts. Despite the importance of attending to teaching self-efficacy beliefs, no scale exists to measure them. The present paper presents two studies conducted in order to develop a teaching outdoor education self-efficacy scale (TOE-SES). In Study 1, data were collected from 303 participants in undergraduate collegiate outdoor programs across the United States. Exploratory factor analysis reduced a 49-item pool to a parsimonious 23 item scale comprised of 5 subscales: instruction and assessment (IA), outdoor classroom management (OCM), technical skill (TECH), interpersonal skill (INT), and environmental integration (ENV). In Study 2, data were collected from 200 National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) instructor and outdoor educator course participants. Confirmatory factor analysis tested the fit of the proposed model from Study 1. Results indicated an acceptable fit for a 22-item, 5-factor scale with strong subscale internal 40 consistencies. Due to the dire consequences associated with inaccurate teaching self-efficacy beliefs in outdoor contexts, the TOE-SES 22 was developed as a means to examine the accuracy of these influential self-beliefs. Introduction Outdoor educator teacher self-efficacy beliefs are important to the process of teaching in the outdoors. Specifically, an outdoor educator's self-efficacy beliefs may influence the approach and avoidance of instructional strategies, the likelihood to experiment with new strategies (Allinder, 1994), and persistence amidst set-backs while teaching (Tschannen- Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). An effective outdoor educator must not only be competent in the foundational skills required to teach in traditional, classroom-based settings (e.g., engage students, differentiate instruction, and assess student performance), he or she must also be competent in outdoor-specific teaching skills (Gilbertson, Bates, McLaughlin, & Ewert, 2006, p. vii). For example, an outdoor educator who is teaching students how to kayak on a whitewater river may need to maintain her students' physical comfort in challenging environmental conditions (e.g., hot sun, wind, rain, or snow), gain students' trust amidst actual physical hazards, improvise instructional techniques amidst minimal resources (e.g., draw in the sand rather than on a chalkboard or overhead projector), minimize impacts to the environment, and select a river-based "classroom" to ensure a balance of risk management and opportunities for student learning. Thus, errors in an educator's self-efficacy beliefs, which are one's judgments of ability to successfully perform necessary teaching tasks, carry consequences for student learning and student safety (cf. Martin & Priest, 1986). 41 Self-efficacy beliefs are considered the "foundation of human agency" (Bandura, 2001, p.10). They are beliefs in "one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (Bandura, 1977, p. 3). Essentially, self-efficacy beliefs are future-oriented beliefs about one's likelihood of success in accomplishing a task. Their influence on behavior, and more specifically teacher behaviors, is well documented in the form of teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen, et al., 1998). An important distinction is that self-efficacy beliefs reflect perceptions or judgments of competence and these judgments may often be over or underestimations of an individual's actual ability (Cakir & Alici, 2009; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). In addition, self-efficacy beliefs are generally considered context and task-specific (Bandura, 1986; Propst & Koesler, 1998). Pajares (1997) notes that when evaluation of one's capability is matched to a specific task in a specific setting the self-efficacy judgments are most likely to predict behaviors related to persistence, motivation, and approach or avoidance of tasks. Despite the uniqueness of outdoor education tasks and the consequences associated with inaccurate outdoor educator teaching self-efficacy beliefs, there is no instrument available to accurately measure those beliefs. Thus, the final purpose of the two studies presented in this paper is to develop and validate a self-efficacy scale specific to teaching in outdoor education contexts. A self-efficacy scale for outdoor education would provide valuable information to outdoor educator trainers and outdoor educators-in-training. The scale could inform trainers regarding how accurate an educator-in-training's perception of competence is. Does he fail to recognize his strengths and limitations? Will he be safe? Will he approach tasks beyond his ability or unnecessarily avoid teaching challenges which he can surmount? Similarly, an outdoor educator-in-training might gain valuable information about the domains of skill 42 where she is over or underestimating her likelihood of success and subsequently utilize this knowledge to avoid undesirable consequences such as injury (cf. Martin & Priest, 1986) or take full advantage of her skills and maximize student learning. The importance of examining outdoor educator self-efficacy during the training phase is emphasized by research findings which indicate unrealistically positive or negative self-efficacy beliefs are commonly found to develop in teachers when they first begin the teaching process (Cakir & Alici, 2009). These initial experiences are the some of the most powerful influences on long-term teacher self-efficacy beliefs and future behaviors (Shaughnessy, 2004). Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Brief History of the Construct and Measurement Teacher self-efficacy has been found to predict teachers' goals and aspirations (Mujis & Reynolds, 2002), the likelihood of experimenting with teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994), and persistence in the face of set-backs (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998). It should be noted however, that statements about the influence of teacher self-efficacy (or as it was initially termed, teacher efficacy) should be interpreted with caution due to a historical litany of measurement issues. Despite this caveat, the above findings are of particular relevance for the application of teacher self-efficacy in outdoor education. Although there is no instrumentation for outdoor educator self-efficacy; there has been considerable attention directed toward teacher self-efficacy in the traditional classroom-based context. Unfortunately, the varieties of approaches taken by researchers to understand teacher self-efficacy have made it an elusive construct to capture (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). For example, the construct teacher self-efficacy was not initially being examined, but 43 rather, the broad construct teacher efficacy was being measured (Armor, et al. 1976). Teacher efficacy was defined as a teacher's judgment of her abilities to bring about the outcomes of student engagement and learning, even in difficult or unmotivated students (Armor, et al., 1976; Bandura, 1977). The lack of "self" in the term "teacher efficacy" and its definition directs the meaning (and measurement) towards the effectiveness a teacher might have on outcomes rather than the teacher's ability to perform specific tasks. The operationalization of teacher efficacy resulted in measuring constructs distinctly different from teacher self-efficacy including locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and outcome expectancies (Bandura, 1986; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The distinction between a self-efficacy belief and outcome expectancy is noted by Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) who explain that beliefs about whether a teacher can perform certain actions (teacher self-efficacy) is a much different conceptualization than beliefs about whether actions will effect general outcomes (outcome expectancy). As such, and for subsequent clarity, the present study will use the term teacher self-efficacy or when appropriate, teaching outdoor education self-efficacy. Recent efforts to examine teacher self-efficacy come from the theoretical traditions of Bandura's work (1977, 1997) with an added emphasis on context and task specificity. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) offer a useful instrument to capture teacher self-efficacy which recognizes the importance of context and tasks in a variety of domains associated within teacher's daily lives. Adaptation and extension of this approach to the outdoor education setting may be a useful strategy to develop a self-efficacy scale for outdoor education. 44 Domains of Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy In an effort to direct the development of the Teaching Outdoor Education Self- Efficacy Scale (TOE-SES), teaching outdoor education self-efficacy is defined as an educator's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to successfully accomplish teaching tasks in outdoor education settings. An analysis of the skills required of outdoor educators was necessary to develop an outdoor education-specific scale. However, unlike traditional education, outdoor education is a generally unregulated field, lacking in federal or state recommended competencies. Therefore, several sources were examined in both the traditional and outdoor education contexts to create an inventory of relevant domains and competencies. Examination of teacher qualification criteria as established by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) allowed for easily accessible and identifiable competencies which may be relevant for outdoor educators. These competencies include instructional planning, instructional strategies, possessing content knowledge, differentiating instruction for diverse learners, engaging students, assessing student learning, and developing rapport with students (CCSSO, 2010). These competencies or ability domains serve as a useful starting point, yet they may fail to capture the necessary context and multidimensional nature of outdoor education practice. The Wilderness Education Association (WEA) has recently developed accreditation standards in accordance with the US Department of Education (Pelchat & Williams, 2009) in an effort to establish federally recognized competencies for outdoor leadership training. The competencies include: outdoor living, planning and logistics, risk management, leadership, environmental integration, and lastly, education. Several subcomponents of the "education" 45 (p. 37) competency are consistent with those identified by CCSSO (2010). Planning and assessment, instructional strategies, and student engagement appear to be three domains which are germane to the teaching trade regardless of context and thus, are included in the TOE-SES. Comparison of the WEA competencies with other sources describing the nature of outdoor education practice produced four more competencies relevant for inclusion. Outdoor education related research (e.g., Schumann, Paisley, Sibthorp, & Gookin, 2009) and texts (e.g. Gilbertson, et al., 2006; Gookin, 2003; Martin, Cashel, Wagstaff, & Breunig, 2006) contain recommendations for areas in which outdoor educators should be competent. In addition, practitioners themselves function as a source because various strategies known as "folk pedagogies" (Baldwin, Persing, & Magnuson, 2004, p. 168) are utilized but receive little attention in the literature. The following additional domains of competence were developed: outdoor classroom management (Priest & Gass, 2005; Wagstaff & Attarian, 2009), technical skill (e.g., Shooter, Paisley, Sibthorp, 2009; Wagstaff & Attarian, 2009), interpersonal skill (McKenzie, 2003; Schumann, et al., 2009; Shooter, et al., 2009), and environmental integration (Martin, et al., 2006). Ultimately, after examination of (a) CCSSO recommended competencies, (b) the WEA competencies, (c) outdoor education related research and literature, and (d) informal interviews with current outdoor educators and staffing supervisors seven domains were identified which appear to be relevant to outdoor educator self-efficacy beliefs. The following is a description of each domain. 46 Instructional Planning and Assessment Instructional planning and assessment is the ability to appropriately select, plan, and prepare activities and lessons based upon assessment of students' needs or abilities and also assess student performance in subsequently delivered lessons and activities. Preparing to teach in the outdoors is an important skill. Effective outdoor educators need to "do their homework" (Gookin, 2003, p. 12) before the activity to ensure they have an adequate knowledge base to teach from. Gookin explains, "A teacher generally needs to know 5 - 10 times as much detail as is taught to be considered proficient enough to teach the topic" (p. 12). In addition to developing content knowledge, the educator must be able to assess the current ability and comfort level of her students in order to select an appropriate level of challenge and outdoor location for instruction (Nicolazzo, 2004; Priest & Gass, 2005) as well as assess student performance. A sample item for instructional planning and assessment is as follows: "Use several different assessment techniques to enhance your knowledge of students' progress." Implementation of Instructional Strategies Implementation of instructional strategies refers to an ability to effectively deliver teaching strategies to demographically diverse students of all abilities. Just because an instructor knows how to perform a skill does not mean he knows how to teach it. In some cases, competent outdoor educators are required to analyze a task, break it down into its components, and then provide effective instruction to convey tasks through various means such as verbal, visual, and kinesthetic approaches (Wagstaff & Attarian, 2009). Despite the lack of traditional teaching resources in an outdoor setting, outdoor educators must still 47 utilize sound practices such as the use of visual aids. This may require creating, and effectively using, an improvised whiteboard (e.g., conceptual drawings in the sand). At other times, skills are taught through direct instruction (Gookin, 2003) and outdoor educators may need to competently use the instructional strategy of feedback (e.g., Schumann, et.al., 2009) to inform students of their progress. A sample item is as follows: "Provide feedback to all of your students regardless of their ability?" Student Engagement and Motivation Student engagement is the ability to gain and maintain student interest in learning and generate a motivation to continue the learning process. Instructors who are engaging can effectively use their voice, energy level, and body language to maintain student interest through a lesson (Gookin, 2003). They can engage students through providing choice and making material relevant to the students' interests (Jensen, 1998). A sample item is as follows: "Use a variety of strategies to engage even the least motivated students during a long day of outdoor activity?" Outdoor "Classroom" Management Outdoor classroom management refers to the ability to effectively teach in the natural environment while managing students' physical comfort and managing risk to the participants. The outdoor education environment provides a resource rich classroom for teachers to interact with, yet it also presents a variety of conditions which must be managed for student safety and learning. Outdoor educators are required to select educational experiences appropriate to the environmental conditions (Priest & Gass, 2005, p. 115). Outdoor educators are also required to teach in contexts which potentially contain dangerous 48 objective hazards such as rock fall, avalanche danger, or lightning (Wagstaff & Attarian, 2009). A sample item is: "Monitor each of your students' physical comfort and protection from the environment (extreme temperatures, wind, rain…)?" Technical Skill The technical skill domain refers to the ability to successfully and safely perform the necessary outdoor skills relevant to accomplishing a particular lesson or activity. "Technical skills are the physical tasks associated with the hands-on activities of outdoor education" (Shooter, Sibthorp, & Paisley, 2009, p. 7). Although technical skills are not always the intended outcome of outdoor education they commonly serve as the means through which the outcomes are achieved (Priest & Gass, 2005). These skills include outdoor recreation activities such as rock climbing or paddling. This goes beyond simply knowing about the skill, it addresses the ability to do it. An educator who cannot model skills such as rolling a kayak, crampon technique, or route finding is a less effective instructor than one who possesses the necessary skills. An item from the technical skill domain is as follows: "Accurately use a map and compass to determine your location1?" Interpersonal Skill The interpersonal skill domain refers to the ability to build rapport, effectively listen, understand, empathize, demonstrate sincerity, and show respect for student differences in culture, interests, and skill. The importance of outdoor educators to competently communicate and connect with students on a personal level is well documented in the literature (e.g., McKenzie, 2003). To achieve desired outcomes an educator must be able to 1Items in the technical skill domain should be modified as necessary to suit the context in which the outdoor education training or field work occurs (e.g., sea kayak specific skills, desert skills). 49 communicate with students in ways that place value on student opinions, encourage participation, and clearly convey ideas. More specifically, communication skills are used by educators to build rapport with students. Instructor rapport is predictive of several outcomes in National Outdoor Leadership School curriculum (i.e., leadership, outdoor skill, environmental stewardship; Sibthorp, Paisley, & Gookin, 2007). Lastly, outdoor education is a social endeavor and educators must be able to adapt these strategies to recognize cultural differences as well as differences in student ability (Gilbertson, et al., 2006). A sample item is as follows: "Communicate with your students in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to cultural differences?" Environmental Integration Environmental integration refers to an outdoor educator's ability to effectively address ecological considerations throughout his or her educational practice in the effort to develop students' environmental ethic and connections to the environment. Introducing students to local flora and fauna, facilitating discussion around ecological concepts, and bringing to light environmental impacts resulting from land use and management are all foundational aspects of outdoor education (Gookin, 2003; Martin, et al., 2006; Pelchat & Williams, 2009;). A sample item is as follows: "Integrate current land management issues into your daily lessons?" Methods - Study 1 Design DeVillis's (2003) guidelines for scale development and Bandura's (2006) recommendations for self-efficacy scale development were followed in order to develop the 50 present scale. TOE-SES items include the use of "you" because the purpose is to assess the educator's subjective belief in his ability. They also include verbs such as, "can" or "are able to" so that the items point to the successful attainment of the task. Items attend to self-efficacy strength, which is the degree of confidence in a respondent's ability to perform in a domain (i.e., 0 - 100% certain; Bandura, 2006). In addition, Bandura recommends examining generality, which refers to the breadth of the domain. Finding the optimal level of breadth and specificity does not come without its challenges. Items extremely specific would come at the "expense of external validity and practical relevance" (Pajares, 1997, p. 561). In an effort to achieve context specificity and breadth, each of the items are situated in outdoor education across the seven domains, yet remain general enough to ensure the present instrument's utility across the outdoor education self-efficacy construct. As such each item will be in response to the prompt: "How certain you are that you can currently perform the following tasks throughout a week-long wilderness backpacking expedition with ten students?"2 Content Validity Based on the above scale design and identification of teaching outdoor education domains, 49 items were developed for the initial item pool. Content validity was maximized through use of an expert panel comprised of outdoor education program researchers, field staff and curriculum directors across a variety of programs (e.g., Outward Bound USA, The National Outdoor Leadership School, and the Wilderness Education Association). Panel members first examined the domains and confirmed or disconfirmed the definitions, the 2This prompt can be modified by users of the TOE-SES to suit different outdoor education contexts where trainings or field work occurs (e.g., How certain you are that you can currently perform the following tasks throughout a week-long sea-kayaking expedition with ten students? 51 comprehensiveness of the domains, and offered additional domains if necessary. Expert panel members then examined each item for clarity and assigned each item in the initial pool to one of the seven domains. Recommendations for improvement were offered and taken into consideration. The seven original domains remained and where appropriate, items were rewritten. Measurement The target scale length for the final version of the TOE-SES was approximately 25 items. After efforts to improve content validity were taken, an initial pool of 49 items was developed which consisted of 8 items in the instructional planning and assessment domain, 11 items in the instructional strategies domain, 5 in the outdoor classroom management domain, 7 in the technical skill domain, 6 in the interpersonal domain, 5 in the student engagement domain, and 7 in the environmental integration domain. The questionnaire also contained demographic information regarding number of weeks of field experience as an outdoor educator (a week is 7 days), gender, and age. Setting and Participants The 49-item scale was administered to undergraduates in collegiate outdoor programs across the United States (n = 303). Due to the outdoor educational emphasis of these programs, participants familiarity with item content, and that the participants are generally at the beginning of their outdoor educator careers, they were well situated to participate in the development of the scale. Given the target scale length of approximately 25 items, the sample size was adequate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) and consisted of 99 females (32%) and 204 52 males (68%). The mean age was 23 years (SD 4.57), the mean number of weeks of outdoor educator experience was 12 (SD 25.2). Data Analysis The objectives were to produce seven distinct subscales to represent the breadth of outdoor educator teaching self-efficacy beliefs, with alpha coefficients above .80 through a 25 item multidimensional scale. Because this was an exploratory instrument, preliminary statistical evaluation of the suitability of the scale for factor analysis was conducted as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). To reduce the scale items, a series of principal-axis factor analyses were conducted, each followed by direct oblim rotation solutions because it was anticipated that the underlying subscales would be correlated. In addition, subscale item analysis was conducted as per Devillis (2003) using means, standard deviations, interitem correlations, content validity feedback, and discrimination statistics. Items were deleted based on low squared multiple correlations, followed by low item-scale correlations. Results - Study 1 The suitability of the scale for factor analysis was acceptable with a Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy statistic of .938 and a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity< .001. The initial factor analysis was performed on the 49-item instrument with forced extraction of the hypothesized seven factors. The analysis revealed seven factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0. After examination of the scree plot and indicators of factor and item viability, it was decided that a five-factor solution was the most interpretable. Several items in the instructional planning and assessment subscale, instructional strategies subscale, 53 and the student engagement subscale loaded onto the same factor, thus resulting in a single factor we identified as instruction and assessment (IA) defined as the ability to effectively prepare and implement teaching strategies, gain and maintain a diverse group of students' interests, and assess student performance. In order to identify the final subscale items, a series of principal axis analyses were used. An item was considered for inclusion on the final scale if it had a structure matrix loading of greater than .45 on a given factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) and satisfied the item characteristics recommended by DeVillis (2003). Ultimately, after item deletion, a 23- item multidimensional scale was identified (Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy Scale, TOE-SES 23) which explained 58.26% of the variance with satisfactory subscale internal consistencies. The TOE-SES 23 contained five subscales: instruction and assessment (IA, α = .90), technical skill (TECH, α =.81), interpersonal skill (INT, α =.82), outdoor classroom management (OCM, α =.83), and environmental integration (ENV, α =.88). The factorial structure did not exhibit a notable difference when analyzed separately by male and female participants. Table 3.1 presents a pattern matrix for the factor loadings of the final solution. A factor correlation matrix is presented in Table 3.2. Methods - Study 2 Measurement The primary purpose of Study 2 was to examine the validity of the five subscales of the TOE-SES 23 through confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent validity was also assessed through four additional items from Skaalvik and Skaalvik's (2007) teacher self-efficacy (TSE) scale which examines teacher self-efficacy beliefs in traditional classroom-based 54 Table 3.1. Pattern Matrix of Final Solution of the 5 Factor Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Oblim Rotation Item Sub-Scale IA TECH INT OCM ENV Be prepared to explain subject matter in several distinctly different ways to your students. .57 Create lessons that meet the needs of a diversity of learners. .79 Accurately assess each student's performance. .59 Facilitate discussion in a variety of ways. .48 Adapt your instruction to attend to the spectrum of abilities in your group. .55 Use teaching strategies that address different learning preferences. .58 Introduce topics in creative ways that are engaging for your students. .49 Accurately monitor each of your students' protection from the environment. .50 Select appropriate outdoor instructional sites to maximize student challenge while managing risk. .52 Adapt your instruction based on changes in the hazards present in your outdoor classroom. .63 Effectively manage instructional time so that students basic needs are met (food, shelter, rest…). .54 Facilitate discussion surrounding ecological concepts. .46 Interpret the basic health of environmental systems. .64 Deliver lessons to inform students of local flora and fauna. .75 Integrate current land management issues into your daily lessons. .77 Without error, demonstrate how to use a map and compass. .80 Appropriately adjust travel plans due to changes in environmental conditions. .67 Demonstrate how to conduct a patient assessment of an individual who has been injured by rock fall. .45 55 Table 3.1. Continued Item Sub-Scale IA TECH INT OCM ENV Communicate with your students in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to cultural differences. .54 Communicate empathy for each of your students. .75 Communicate patience with your students after a long day of difficult weather. .70 Communicate with your students in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to gender differences. .77 Alpha coefficient .90 .81 .82 .83 .88 Note: N = 303. Total variance explained by all factors was 58.26%. 56 Table 3.2. Factor Correlation Matrix (N = 303) IA TECH INT OCM ENV IA 1.00 TECH .42 1.00 INT .57 .28 1.00 OCM .47 .51 .39 1.00 ENV .32 .37 .37 .31 1.00 settings. It was hypothesized that the TSE items would be positively correlated with the TOE-SES 23 subscales. The total questionnaire, as administered, consisted of 23 TOE-SES items, 4 TSE items, 2 demographic items (sex and age) and 1 item regarding field weeks employed as an outdoor educator. Setting and Participants The scale was administered to National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) participants on Outdoor Educator and Instructor Courses in 2011. Established in 1965, NOLS combines the development of outdoor leadership, education, and technical skills with disciplines such as biology and natural history. Students on outdoor educator and instructor courses typically aspire to work professionally in outdoor education and are in the process of gaining further skill development. Two hundred participants (n = 200) completed the instrument which was an adequate sample size for this model (Boosma, 1983). Of the sample, 112 were male (56%) and 88 were female (44%), mean age was 24.8 years (SD 6.43), mean number of field weeks was 12.79 weeks (SD 28.8). This sample was comparable to the sample in Study 1. 57 Data Analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the fit of the proposed model from study 1.The CFA utilized AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) structural equation modeling software. The hypothesized model of the TOE-SES 23 was tested using a maximum likelihood estimation of the five distinct, yet correlated, latent variables. In order to recognize the covariance structures, error terms on adjacent items on the same subscale were allowed to correlate if covariances were above .1. Hu and Bentler (1995) suggest reporting two types of fit indices, a residual fit index and a comparative fit index. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was used an indicator of absolute fit. The optimal value for not rejecting correct models is about .91 in a sample of 200 (Sivo, Fan, Witta, & Willse, 2006). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used to compare the model's lack of fit compared to a perfect model; Browne and Cudeck (1993) explain that RMSEA value of .08 or less would indicate a reasonable error of approximation and models between .05 and .08 represent an acceptable fit. The root mean square residual (RMR) was used as a residual-based fit index, models with an RMR value of zero indicate a perfect fit, the smaller the RMR the better. Because of its sensitivity to small sample sizes, Bollen's (1990) incremental-fit index (IFI) was used as an indicator of type two incremental fit (>.95 = good fit). As suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), the comparative-fit index (CFI) was also used due to its sensitivity to small samples (>.95= good fit). It is also recommended to examine the path coefficients; factor loadings should exceed .70 so that items are explained more by the hypothesized reflective construct than by the associated error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In addition, the appropriateness of any post hoc 58 modification of the resultant model were considered based onTabachnik and Fidell's (2001) suggested use of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).Finally, a summative score was created for the traditional classroom-based TSE scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and the five TOE-SES 23 subscales; it was hypothesized that TOE-SES and TSE scores would be positively related. Study 2 - Results Initial examination of the path coefficients and modification indices identified one potentially problematic item in the interpersonal skill subscale. The item loaded across three of the subscales. Upon inspection, retention of the item was not warranted due to sufficient content coverage by other items and the item was removed from further analyses. The resultant model, the TOE-SES 22, was tested. In general, based on examination of the fit indices and path coefficients, the results indicated that the TOE-SES 22model exhibited an acceptable fit. Indices which are sensitive to smaller sample sizes, demonstrated a good to excellent fit and provided support for the proposed factor structure of the TOE-SES 22: RMSEA = .069, IFI = .959; CFI = .958.The GFI was .862 which is approaching the cutoff for a good model fit of .91 with this sample size. The RMR was .152, indicating marginal fit. Path coefficients were also examined. All standardized regression coefficients of the items on their respective domain subscales were significant (p < .001). Excluding one item in the technical skill domain subscale (…demonstrate how to conduct a patient assessment), all item weights were above .7.Post hoc modification of the base model from a scale of 23 items to 22 items resulted in an AIC decrease from 620.56 to 498.588 reflecting a considerable and appropriate improvement from modification. Thus, considering the results of the fit and 59 modification indices and regression weight characteristics it appears that TOE-SES 22 factor structure is acceptable. Factor correlations ranged from .54 to .90. The TECH and OCM factors were the most highly correlated at .90. A path coefficient so high is indicative of multicollinearity, implying that the two domains of TECH and OCM may be empirically inseparable even though they might be conceptually different. In comparison to the exploratory factor analysis in Study 1, the refined factor analyzed model in study two demonstrated superior internal consistency across the subscales. The TOE-SES 22 accounted for 74.60% of the variance and displayed strong internal consistency across the five distinct subscales: IA (α =.94), OCM (α =.92), TECH (α =.86), INT (α =.92), and ENV (α =.93). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Figure 3.1. Convergent validity was evidenced by the hypothesized positive correlations between each of the TOE-SES 22 subscales and the traditional classroom-based teacher self-efficacy scale (TSE; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). All correlations were significant at the p < .01 level, correlations between subscales are presented in Table 3.3. The instruction and assessment (IA) subscale correlated the most highly with the TSE (.74); these subscale items were likely the most similar to one another because they addressed aspects of instruction that are germane to teaching regardless of context. The environmental integration (ENV) subscale correlated the least with the TSE (.56); which seems appropriate because items in the ENV subscale may represent some of the teaching tasks most unique to outdoor education practice. 60 Figure 3.1. Confirmatory Factor Analytic Model for the TOE-SES 22 61 Table 3.3. Correlation Between Subscales (N = 200) IA OCM TECH INT ENV TSE IA 1.00 OCM .72* 1.00 TECH .62* .78* 1.00 INT .73* .65* .57* 1.00 ENV .65* .64* .67* .45* 1.00 TSE .74* .66* .62* .62* .56* 1.00 Note. N = 200 IA = Instruction and Assessment, OCM = Outdoor Classroom Management, TECH = Technical Skill, INT = Interpersonal Skill, ENV = Environmental Integration, TSE = Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) *Correlation is significant at p<.01 (2-tailed) Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this paper was to develop and validate an instrument to measure teaching outdoor education self-efficacy beliefs. Two studies were conducted to accomplish this goal: the first utilized exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the second involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The final result of these analyses was the Teaching Outdoor Education Self-Efficacy Scale 22 (TOE-SES 22), a five-factored multidimensional scale with an acceptable model fit and sound subscale internal consistencies. Study 1 examined the viability of seven discrete domains of outdoor education practice; the hypothesized domains were developed from outdoor and traditional education sources. Results indicated a 23-item, 5-factor structure was more appropriate. Empirically, an outdoor educator's beliefs about his or her likelihood of success in assessing students, planning and implementing instruction, and engaging students are closely related and may be considered a single skill domain. Although these domains of educational practice are parsed out in outdoor educational research and texts, it seems likely that proficiency in one domain 62 equates to proficiency in the others. Thus, the three domains of outdoor educational practice (instructional planning and assessment, instructional strategies, and student engagement) were collapsed into a single domain termed: instruction and assessment. Refinement in the initial stage of scale development retained the conceptual characteristics of outdoor education practice, yet improved the parsimony of the overall scale increasing its utility for future use. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the factor structure of the hypothesized five distinct, yet correlated subscales of teaching outdoor education self-efficacy. The subscales included: (a) instruction and assessment, (b) outdoor classroom management, (c) technical skill, (d) interpersonal skill, and (e) environmental integration. Although, the results indicated an acceptable fit, there were indications that the model could be improved. Future researchers looking to improve the scale might consider examining the effect of additional items or perhaps reexamining the subscales and corresponding domains to ensure the latent construct of teaching outdoor education self-efficacy is comprehensively captured. The relation between the TECH and OCM domains is of particular interest. The two subscales are conceptually different, yet empirically, appear to measure the same latent construct. The high correlation between the domains may be an artifact of the study population's relative inexperience as outdoor educators. A population of seasoned outdoor educators may be more likely to discern between the ability to perform a skill and the ability to teach others. Previous authors in outdoor education explain that technical skills are required for an outdoor educator to effectively manage a classroom in an environment with technical characteristics (e.g., avalanche terrain or whitewater). At the same time it is understood that the ability to demonstrate a skill (e.g., a technical river crossing) is not 63 equivalent to the ability to manage a classroom in which students are learning that skill. For example, because an outdoor educator can catch an eddy in class III whitewater does not necessarily indicate she can manage a site where students are learning how to do this skill (Nicolazzo, 2004). Therefore, to collapse the two domains into one might be empirically sound yet comprise the conceptual validity of the scale and the decision was made to retain the distinction. Lastly, efforts to simply increase teaching self-efficacy beliefs and use the TOE-SES 22 for measurement would be remiss without attending to the accuracy of the beliefs. Particularly in outdoor education contexts, inaccurate teaching self-efficacy beliefs carry consequences for student learning and safety (cf. Martin & Priest, 1986). Outdoor educators' teaching self-efficacy beliefs can become inflated and in some cases, outdoor educator training programs inadvertently foster inflated beliefs of competence (Article 1). As such, teaching outdoor education self-efficacy beliefs should be compared to external objective assessments (e.g., staff trainer or supervisor evaluations). Herein lays the utility of the TOE-SES 22. Examination of the accuracy of TOE-SES 22 beliefs can provide useful feedback for emerging outdoor educators to calibrate their beliefs in their abilities and make appropriate educational decisions in the future. References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 130 243). 64 Baldwin, C., Persing, J., & Magnusen, D. (2004). The role of theory, research, and evaluation in adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 167-183. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy. In Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. 390-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bollen, 1990, Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256-259. Cakir, O., & Alici, D. (2009). Seeing self as others see you: Cariability in self-efficacy ratings in student teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 541- 561. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, July). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue (Draft for Public Comment). Washington, DC: Author. Drury, J., Bonney, B., Berman, D., & Wagstaff, M. (2005). The backcountry classroom. (2nd ed.) Helena, MT: Globe Pequot. Furman, N., Shooter, W., & Schumann, S. (2010). The Roles of heuristics, avalanche forecast, and risk propensity in the decision making of backcountry skiers, Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 453-469. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Gilbertson, K., Bates, T., McLaughlin, T., & Ewert, A., (2006). Outdoor education: Methods and strategies. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL. Gookin, J. (2003). NOLS Wilderness educator notebook. Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School. 65 Henson. R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137-150. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp.76-99). London: Sage. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria: Association for Supervision, Curriculum, and Development. Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M., & Breunig, M. (2006). Outdoor leadership: Theory and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martin, P., & Priest, S. (1986). Understanding the adventure experience. Journal of Adventure Education, 3(1), 18 -21. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviours: What really matters. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3-15. Nicolazzo. P. (2004). Risk and site management in outdoor education and recreation. Winthrop, WA: Nicolazzo. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 10 (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pelchat, C. & Williams, M. (2009). Wilderness Education Association: Accreditation Manual. Bloomington, IL: WEA. Petzoldt, P. (1984). The new wilderness handbook. New York: Norton. Phipps, M. & Swiderski,