A critical evaluation on the comfort zone, and if it is still relevant today

Brown (2003), wrote a blogg on how the comfort zone is utilised in the outdoors, and if it's still relevant in today's outdoor programs. The main points that he was trying to put forward was that people are placed in stressful situation all the time, and from my experience of working in the outdoors, a young child with little outdoor experience is placed into a situation that could make them distressed, so therefore is it natural that students are then placed into stressful situations to be pushed out side of their comfort zone in order for them to gain knowledge and experience, or is it? The article explores the underpinning theories of the comfort zone model, where he suggests that it is time to maybe rethink it.

  

Reviewed literature by Piaget (1977), Brookes (2003), and Festinger (1957) who are have contradicting views on the way the model is used. Piaget states that the person adapts to the situation to remain at a stable state in the model, though is contradicted by Brookes (2003) who claims that stress doesn't always equal learning, as certain behaviours does not mean you are learning. Whereas Festinger relates to the change in behaviour over a situation will cause a change in attitude.

Shooter, Paisley, & Sibthorp (2010) agree with Brookes, who stated in their paper that the trust in relationships between leaders and participants in one way that outdoor leaders can create an emotionally safe environment for learning. Though on the other hand Duffy (1957) developed a theory that if enough challenge was introduced into a person’s adventure experience, then they would experience a degree of learning, and growth.
I personalty feel that the comfort learning zone for any learner is not an ideal model to be using, as there looks to be a fine line between learning and panic. A learner looking at this model might miss interpret it as a fine line between being comfortable and not learning, and panic and not learning with the prospect of little recovery and not feel comfortable using the model. education and learning should not use stressful situations as a way of education, as stress induced situations might cause the learner to not continue with the learning experience.

All authors in this review of the learning model have a valid point. Though if the model were to change to incorporate a degree of safety into it, and not cause a person to have server stress rather than thrive off the experience, then the performer would gain vital experience and knowledge. A good base line would be the peak flow model by Priest and Gass (1997).

                                    

The Peak flow model takes into account where a performer in the outdoors reaches a degree of peak adventure where they are in the optimal point of learning, and too far beyond results in a negative effect. This model of learning to me is a much more ideal model to use for learning on the outdoors, as exploration is a form of learning, and then it can easily be applied to adventure. 

References and Further readings:

Brookes, A. (2003). Character building. Why it doesn’t happen, why it can’t be made to happen, and why the myth of character building is hurting the field of outdoor education. In 13th National Outdoor Education Conference Proceedings (pp. 19-24). Adelaide, South Australia: Outdoor Educators Association of South Australia.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. (Trans A. Rosin). Viking.

Festinger, L. (1957). Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.

Shooter ,W. Paisley, K. & Sibthorp, J. (2010). Trust Development in Outdoor Leadership. Journal of Experiantial Education 33(3), 189-207.

Bunting, C. Tolson, H. Kuhn, C. Suarez, E. & Williams, R, (2002). Physilogical Stress Responces of the Neuroendocrine System During Outdoor. Journal of Leisure Research 32(2), 191.