研究生: |
廖炳煌 Liao, Ping-Huang |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
冒險方案計畫發展與實施之研究—以H機關團隊領導力訓練課程為例 Study of the Development and Implementation of Adventure Programming –An Example of H Agency's Team Leadership Training Course |
指導教授: |
蔡居澤
Tsai, Ju-Tse |
口試委員: | 謝智謀 吳崇旗 王俊杰 王伯宇 蔡居澤 |
口試日期: | 2021/06/30 |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
公民教育與活動領導學系 Department of Civic Education and Leadership |
論文出版年: | 2021 |
畢業學年度: | 109 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 411 |
中文關鍵詞: | 冒險方案計畫 、檢核要件 、影響因素 、動態歷程 、重要內涵 |
英文關鍵詞: | Adventure Programming, Inspection Requirements, Influencing Factors, Dynamic Process, Important Connotations |
研究方法: | 行動研究法 、 參與觀察法 |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202101462 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:110 下載:17 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在建立冒險方案計畫發展與實施的動態歷程。用H機關共138位中階主管,分為四個梯次,分別參與的冒險方案計畫發展與實施之「團隊領導力訓練」內容,設計量表與觀察紀錄,整理並歸納出檢核要件和影響因素,驗證冒險方案計畫的動態歷程和重要內涵。藉以提升冒險方案計畫發展與實施的品質。
本研究目的為建構冒險方案計畫發展與實施之動態歷程,並運用實施過程中已經分析確認之檢核要件及相關影響因素,提供方案計畫帶領者調整或修正操作項目、前導問句、活動規則或引導討論等部分內容,以保持冒險方案計畫發展與實施前後的一致性和穩定度,提升冒險方案計畫實施品質,確保實務工作者運用這個動態歷程模式,能夠有效的實現客戶所期待的訓練成果。
本研究為了分析確認冒險方案計畫發展與實施之檢核要件與影響因素,以及建立冒險方案計畫的動態歷程與重要內涵。因此,本研究將針對「團隊領導力問卷調查」、「操作項目契合度意見調查」與「團隊領導觀察紀錄」、「帶領反思紀錄」這四種研究工具,確認學習成效及操作項目契合度二項檢核要件,和「個人行為表現、人與人之間的互動、次團體的形成和團隊發展狀態」的四項影響因素,進行整理、分析、比對,調整冒險方案計畫,重複這樣的螺旋循環,直到方案計畫呈現穩定的型態。並採用行動研究法、問卷調查法、觀察紀錄法及相關理論,探討並回應本研究所要探討的研究目的與研究問題。
本研究的結論有以下幾點:一、冒險方案計畫發展與實施之檢核要件有兩項:1.學習成效;2.操作項目契合度。二、冒險方案計畫發展與實施之影響因素有四項:1.個人的行為表現;2.人與人之間的互動;3.次團體的形成;4.團隊發展狀態。
本研究的每一梯次方案計畫結束之後,經過學習成效的前、後測結果、操作項目契合度意見調查的平均值、t檢定及迴歸分析等量化統計,協同研究員的團隊領導觀察紀錄及帶領者反思紀錄這四個研究工具,確認檢核要件及四個影響因素的觀察分析,帶領者和協同研究員討論之後,決定調整下一個梯次的方案計畫實施的內容,進行螺旋循環,直到穩定的狀態。有提升方案計畫內容品質的效果,應該可供實務工作者和學術研究者參考與實施。
從這些發展與實施的理論及本研究探究的共同點可以統整出,冒險方案計畫發展與實施之重要內涵為:1.需求評估、2.設計、3.發展、4.實施、5.評量。本研究將評量擺至在中心的位置,從需求評估開始、設計、發展與實施都可以進行形成性評量和總結性評量的比對和判別,找出冒險方案計畫需要修正的地方。也因為有這樣的6.理解、7.慎思、8.對話、9.批判,使得整個冒險方案計畫愈趨近於訓練目標和主辦單位的目的,也就更能確保冒險方案計畫實施的品質。
本研究提出冒險方案計畫發展與實施的動態歷程及重要內涵之結合,使得實務工作者可以更精準理解企業客戶的訓練需求,透過更有依據的冒險方案計畫的發展與實施,幫助個人與團隊都有改變的可能。冒險方案計畫發展與實施動態歴程和重要內涵之結合,符合將「行動」和「研究」結合為一。也因為在冒險方案計畫實施後,公司的內部的驅動因子(強化、奬勵、鼓勵及監測)等制度建立起來,參與者的行為才會產生徹底的改變。對於冒險方案計畫發展與實施而言,將冒險方案計畫動態歴程和重要內涵,配合公司建立內部的驅動因子,然後將三者結合起來,才會使整個冒險方案計畫趨向穩定的最終階段。
This research aims to establish a dynamic process of the development and implementation of adventure programming. Using the four echelons of team leadership training involving a total of 138 middle level managers of the H institution as the content, design scales, and observation records, sort out and summarize the inspection requirements and influencing factors, and verify the dynamic process and important connotations of the adventure programming. To improve the quality of the development and implementation of adventure programming.
The purpose of this research is to construct a dynamic processing of the development and implementation of the adventure programming, and use the inspection requirements and related influencing factors that have been analyzed and confirmed during the implementation process to provide the instructor to adjust or modify the operating items, the guiding questions, the activity rules or debriefing. In order to maintain the consistency and stability before and after the development and implementation of the adventure programming, improve the quality of the adventure programming implementation, and ensure that the practitioners use this dynamic processing model to effectively achieve the training results expected by the customer.
This research aims to analyze and confirm the inspection requirements and influencing factors of the development and implementation of the adventure programming and establish the dynamic process and important connotations of the adventure programming. Therefore, this research will focus on the four research tools of "team leadership questionnaire", "activities match opinion survey", "team observation record", and "lead reflection record" to check the two inspection requirements of learning effectiveness, activities match opinions and the four influencing factors of individual behavior, the interaction between individual, subgroup formation and team development status, sort out, analyze, and compare, adjusting the adventure programming, and repeat this spiral. The steps are looped until the adventure programming shows a stable pattern. And adopt the action research method, Questionnaire research, Observation Research Method and related theories to discuss and respond to the research purpose and research questions to be discussed in this research.
The conclusions of this study are as follows: 1.There are two inspection requirements for developing and implementing adventure programming: (1)Learning effectiveness; (2)activities match opinions. 2.There are four influencing factors for the development and implementation of the adventure programming: (1)Individual behavior; (2)Interpersonal interaction; (3)Sub-group formation; (4)Team development status.
After the completion of each echelon of the adventure programming in this study, the pre-test and post-test results of the learning effectiveness, the average value, t-test and regression analysis of the activities match opinions survey, and “team observation record” of the co-researcher and the “lead reflection record” of the project leader, are four research tools to confirm the inspection requirements: learning effectiveness, activities match opinions and four influencing factors: individual behavior, the interaction between individual, subgroup formation and team development status. After discussing with the co-researchers, the project leader decided to adjust the content of the next echelon in adventure programming, and proceed in a spiraling cycle. It has the effect of improving the quality of the content of the adventure programming and should be used for reference and implementation by practitioners and academic researchers.
Based on the theories of this development and implementation and the common points of this research, the important significance of the development and implementation of adventure programming is 1.Assessment, 2.Design, 3. Development, 4.Implementation, 5.Evaluation. This research puts evaluation at the center. From the beginning of assessment, design, development, and implementation, the comparison and judgment of formative assessment and summative assessment can be carried out. Find out where the adventure programming needs to be corrected. Also because of such 6.Understanding, 7.Deliberate, 8.Dialogue 9.Criticism, the whole adventure programming is getting closer to the training goal and the purpose of the organizer, and it is more able to ensure the implementation of the adventure programming quality.
This research proposes a combination of the dynamic process and important connotations of the development and implementation of the adventure programming so that practitioners can more accurately understand the training needs of corporate customers, through more evidence-based development and implementation of adventure programming, it helps individuals and teams have the possibility of change. The combination of the development and implementation of the adventure programming, the dynamic process, and important connotations, is consistent with the combination of "action" and "research". It is also because the company's internal driving factors (enhancement, reward, encouragement, and monitoring) and other systems are established after the implementation of the adventure programming, and the behavior of participants will be completely changed. For the development and implementation of the adventure programming, the dynamic process and important connotation of the adventure programming are coordinated with the company to establish internal driving factors, and then the three are combined to make the entire adventure programming stabilized at the final stage.
中文部分
丁一顧(2020)。推動學校課程慎思提高學校本位課程品質。課程與教學通訊,10,9-15。
王文科(1994)。質的教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
王文科(1999)。教育研究法。台北:五南。
王文科、王智弘(2010)。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報,17,29-50。
王文科、王智弘(2014)。課程發展與教學設計論。台北:五南。
王俊明(2015)論文的研究、設計與測驗方法。台北:師大書苑。
王保進、郭玫杏(2005)。歐盟高等教育區域計畫之發展及其啟示。教育研究月刊,137,35-55。
方德隆(譯)(2004)。課程發展與設計(原作者Allan C.& Francis P.)。台北:高等教育。(原著出版年:1988)
邱宏益(1996)。員工培訓成效評估之研究。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文,桃園縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u7g86f
吳明清(1991)。教育研究:基本觀念與方法分析。台北:五南。
吳明隆(2001)。教育行動研究導論:理論與實務。台北:五南。
李坤崇(1999)。多元化教學評量。台北:心理出版社。
李祖壽(1979)。教育視導與教育輔導,上冊。台北:黎明。
李政賢(2006)質性研究-設計與計畫撰寫。台北:五南。
李政賢(譯)(2014)。質性研究:從開始到完成(原作者Yin, R. K.)。台北:五南。(原著出版年:2011)
狄家葳(1999)。訓練成效評估之研究-以台灣跨國企業為例。國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文,台北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7y6f72
吳崇旗(2006)。建構戶外冒險教育效益機轉之模式—以繩索挑戰課程為例。國立體育學院體育研究所博士論文,桃園縣。
吳崇旗、陳修蕙(2010)。探討繩索挑戰課程對青少年之效益。體驗教育學報,4,26-36。
吳崇旗、張清源(2007)。探討戶外冒險教育效益的機轉。體驗教育學報,1,13-23。
吳崇旗、謝智謀(2006)。探討戶外冒險教育之效益。中華體育季刊,20(3),43-53。
邱靖蓉(2012)。導入TTQS、PDCA循環與ISO 10015等訓練品質管理概念於公民核心素養課程系統設計之應用。通識教育學刊,10,83-120。
吳瑞蘭、童嘉為(2017)。參加人才發展協會(Association for Talent Development)2017年國際年會研習。台北市:國家文官學院。
林坤茂(1997)。以策略性人力資源觀點探討組織訓練移轉之成效-以臺灣糖業公司為個案分析。國立東華大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,花蓮縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g7ra92
林秉賢(2007)。體驗式學習團體對非行少年自我調節影響之研究。東海大學社會工作學系碩士班碩士論文,台中市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/98jvha
林慧貞(2003)。美國社區學院課程設計模式之研究。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所博士論文,台北市。
林麗惠(1997)。成人參與在職進修訓練的自評成效及其相關因素之研究,國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文,嘉義縣。取自:https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rbftqy
胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。載於胡幼慧(主編),質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(141-157頁)。台北:巨流。
施良方(1997)。課程理論。高雄:麗文。
姜榮哲(2001)。 網路化訓練環境學習成效之影響要素研究。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自:https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4kja45
范熾文(1998)。領導理念的新焦點-轉型領導。教育資料文摘,42,176-189。
郭生玉(1991)。心理與教育研究法。台北:精華。
陳向明(2002)。教師如何作質的研究。台北:紅葉。
陳沁怡(2003)。訓練與發展。台北:雙葉書廊。
陳伯璋(1988)。教育研究方法的新取向:質的研究方法。台北:南宏。
陳美玉(1998)。札記反省法在教師專業發展上應用之探討。中等教育,49(5),60-71。
陳美如(2004)。教師專業的展現與深化― 教師課程領導之為何?如何?與限制。教育研究,126,19-32。
郭振昌(2010)。人力資源訓練發展的規劃與評估-ADDIE模式應用初探。就業安全,99(1),60-66。
陳惠邦(1998)。教育行動研究。台北:師大書苑。
高敬文(1996)。質化研究方法論。台北:師大書苑。
張世平、胡夢鯨(1988)。行動研究。載於賈馥茗、楊深坑(主編),教育研究法的探討與應用(103-139頁)。台北:師大書苑。
莊明貞、陳怡如(譯)(2006)。質性研究導論(原作者Glesne, C.)。台北:高等教育。(原著出版年:1999)
許章真(2018)。最重要的100個英文字首字根(30週年紀念版)。台北:書林。
張智勝(2006)。戶外冒險教育課程效益之影響因素探究。國立臺灣體育大學休閒產業經營研究所碩士論文,桃園縣。
張德忻、徐國峰、江真(譯)(2009)。引導技巧的九堂課:學員導向的學習與改變(原作者Priest S., Gass M., Gillis L.)。桃園:台灣外展教育基金會。(原著出版年:2000)
黃光雄、蔡清田(1999)。課程設計。台北:五南。
黃光雄、簡茂發(1991)。教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
黃茂在、曾鈺琪(2015)。臺灣戶外教育內涵與課程優質化初探。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊,4,22-40。
黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。台北:東華。
黃政傑(1999)。課程改革。台北:漢文。
勞動部勞動力發展署(2017年8月2日)。人才發展品質管理系統(TTQS)介紹。取自https://www.wda.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=F6FEBFBFDA1BBD82
黃瑞琴(1996)。質的教育研究方法。台北:心理出版社。
曾鈺琪(2015)。戶外教育課程研發與評鑑。載於黃茂在、曾鈺琪(主編),戶外教育實施指引(108-123頁)。新北:國家教育研究院。
黃繼仁(2003)。課程慎思應用於教室層級課程實施之研究–以小學低年級教師的語文課程實踐為例。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所博士論文,台北市。
黃繼仁(2005)。許瓦布的課程思想。載於黃政傑(主編),課程思想(59-102頁)。台北:冠學。
楊淑惠(2013)。問卷設計與調查方法。臺北醫學大學保健營養學系報告。
楊瑩、余曉雯、莊小萍、黃照耘(2008)。歐盟高等教育品質保證制度。台北:高等教育。
廖炳煌(2005)。冒險教育課程設計理論架構與登山活動歷程之結合。「第九屆全國大專院校登山運動研討會」發表之論文,中華民國健行登山會。
廖炳煌(2008)。探索教育課程目標與內容之研究。國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文,台北市。
鄭增財(2006)。行動研究原理與實務。台北:五南。
甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務–解構與重建。台北:高等教育。
歐用生(1994)。課程發展模式探討。高雄:復文。
歐用生(2003)。課程慎思與課程領導。載於活化課程領導:邁向課程新紀元(十五)(35-49頁)。台北:教研學會。
傅永均(1994)。企業教育訓練方案成效評估模式之實驗研究-以燁隆鋼鐵公司為例。義守大學管理科學研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jk83pz
劉玉玲(2005)。課程發展與設計。台北:新文京。
潘世尊(2005)。教育行動研究-理論、實踐與反省。台北:心理。
蔡全智(1998)。團隊發展影響因素之研究。國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文,台北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/nae6v3
蔡居澤(1995)。探索教育活動 在童軍教學上的應用。中等教育,46(6),114-119。
蔡居澤、廖炳煌(2007)。探索教育引導技巧培訓手冊。桃園:社團法人中華探索教育發展協會。
蔡保田(1987)。教育研究方法論。台北:師大書苑。
蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。台北:五南。
蔡清田(2002)。學校整體課程經營。台北:五南。
蔡清田(2004)。課程發展行動研究。台北:五南。
劉淑芬(2007)。企業教育訓練評鑑方法應用之研究:Kirkpatrick四層次模式理論分析的觀點。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所博士論文,嘉義縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/dds5yh
鍾佩君(2017)。初探新版柯氏學習評估模式。評鑑雙月刊,68,34-38。
簡建忠(1994)。訓練評鑑,台北:五南。
簡良平(2001)。學校自主發展課程中課程籌劃的探究。課程與教學季刊,4(2),25-46。
羅雁盈(2007)。國民小學綜合活動課程慎思之研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文,台北市。
英文部分
Adair, J. (1973). The Action-Centered Leader. London: McGraw-Hill.
Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (Eds.). (1998). Action Research in Practice. New York: Routledge.
Bank, J. (1985). Outdoor Development for Managers. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Bauer, M.W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative Researching: With Text, Image and Sound. London, UK: Sage.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blanchard, P. N., & Thacker, J. W. (2007). Effective Training: Systems, Strategies, and Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Borgia, E. T. & Schuler, D. (1996). Action Research in Early Childhood Education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED401047.pdf
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don't. New York: Harper Business.
Drexler, A., Sibbet, D. (2011). Visual Teams: Graphic Tools for Commitment, Innovation, and High Performance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Floud, R. (2006). The Bologna Process: Transforming European Higher Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning (38), 8-15.
Gass, M. A. & Gillis, H. L. (1995). CHANGES: A Model Using Adventure Experiences as Assessment. Journal of Experiential Education. 18, (1), 34-40.
Gass M., Goldman K., Priest S. (1992). Constructing Effective Corporate Adventure Training Programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 15(1), 35-42.
Goldstein, I. L. (1986). Training in Organization: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (2nd ed). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Evaluating Training Programs: Development and Correlates of the Questionnaire for Professional Training Evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development,17(2), 135–155.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gwynn, J. M. & John, B. (1970). Curriculum Principles and Social Trends,4th. London: The Macmillan.
Harris, I. B. (1991). Deliberative Inquiry: The Arts of Planning, In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of Curriculum Inquiry (pp.285-308). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Hirsch, J. (1999). Developmental Adventure Program. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.). Adventure Programming (pp.13-27). State College, PA: Venture.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick J., & Kirkpatrick W., (2015). An Introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Retrieved from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
McCutcheon, G. (1995). Developing the Curriculum: Solo and Group Deliberation. New York: Longman.
McDermott, A.G. (1987), A Model of Training Effectiveness: Individual and Environmental Factors Influencing Training Outcomes. University of Houston.
McKenzie, M. D. (2003). Beyond the "Outward Bound Process:" Rethinking Student Learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 8-23.
Miles, J., Priest, S. (Eds.). (1999). Adventure Programming. State College, PA: Venture.
Miner T., (1991). Safety Issues for Experience-Based Training and Development. Journal of Experiential Education, 14(2), 20-25.
Miner, T. (1999) Adventure in the Workplace. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Programming (pp. 395-401). State College, PA: Venture.
Ongena, J. (1982). Adventure Education: An Opportunity to Teach Youth Self-Confidence, Respect. National Association of Secondary Schools Principals Bulletin, 66(454), 71-78.
Phillips, J. J. (1990). Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Priest, S., & Gass, M.A. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Priest, S., & Gass, M.A. (2017). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Priest, S. (1990) Adventure Education. In M. A. Gass, & S. Priest (Eds.), Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming (3rd.) (pp.113-117). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Priest, S. (1998) The Effect of Program Setting and Duration on Corporate Team Development. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(2), 111-112.
Priest, S. (2020, March 14). The Four Purposes of Adventure Programs [Web blog message]. Retrieved from http://simonpriest.altervista.org/OE.html
Prouty, D., Panicucci, J., & Collinson, R. (2007). Adventure Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Reason P., & Hilary B. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (3rd). London: Sage.
Reichert, S. & Tauch, C. (2003). Trends in Learning Structures in European Higher Education III: Bologna Fours Year After. European Commission. Directorate General for Education and Culture.
Ringer, M., & Gillis, H. L. (1995). Managing Psychological Depth in Adventure Programming. The Journal of Experiential Education, 18(1), 41-51.
Rohnke, K. E. (1977). Cowstails & Cobras: A Guide to Rope Courses, Initiative Games, and Other Adventure Activities. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Rohnke, K. E. (1989). Cowstails & Cobras II: A Guide to Games, Initiatives, Rope Courses & Adventure Curriculum. Dubuque IA: Kendall Hunt.
Rohnke, K. E. (1994). The Bottomless Bag. Champaign, IL: Kendall Hunt.
Rohnke, K. E. (2010). Silver Bullets: A Guide to Initiative Problems, Adventure Games and Trust Activities (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Kendall Hunt.
Rohnke, K. E., & Butler, S. (1984). Quicksilver: Adventure Games Initiative Problems Trust Activities and A Guide to Effective Leadership. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Rohnke, K. E., Roger, D., Wall, J. B., & Tait, C. M. (1994, 1997, 2003, 2007). The Complete Rope Course Manual. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Ryan, B. (2005). The Guide for Challenge Course Operations: An Essential Reference for Challenge Course Practitioners. Beverly, MA: Project Adventure.
Schoel, J., & Maizell, R., (2002). Exploring Islands of Healing: New Perspectives on Adventure-Based Counseling. Beverly, MA: Project Adventure.
Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (Eds.). (1988). Islands of Healing-A Guide to Adventure Based Counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure.
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into Curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof. (Ed.). (1978). Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays (pp. 365-383). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (V1, pp.39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Seibert, P. S. (1995). The Importance of a Thorough Needs Assessment. In C. C. Roland, R., Wagner, J. and Weigand, R. (Eds.), Do It and Understand: The Bottom Line on Corporate Experiential Learning (pp.59-64). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Silberman, M. (1990). Active Training: A Handbook of Techniques, Designs, Case Examples, and Tips. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In D.L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation Model: Viewpoint on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (2nd ed.) (pp.279-317). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Wagner, R. J., Baldwin, T. T., and Roland, C. C. (1991). Outdoor Training: Revolution or Fad? Training & Development Journal, 45(3), 50-57.
Walker, D. (1978). A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development In 1. Gress & D. Purple (Ed.), Curriculum: An introduction to the Field (pp. 468-507). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Walsh, V., & Golins, G. L. (1976). The Exploration of the Outward Bound Process. Denver, CO: Colorado Outward Bound School.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.