Educational philosophy proposition.

Having an educational philosophy that is singular and explicit may contribute to character development opportunities through a coherent and consistent approach.

We define an educational philosophy as a guiding set of beliefs and values that inform practice. Having a well-defined educational philosophy was observed as valuable for OB Schools as it provided a guiding set of principles that shaped every aspect of the organization’s learning and development approach and helped create a shared culture at the School (among all employees, regardless of their role). We observed different philosophies in different Schools, and we noted that some were more focused on different aspects of character (i.e., moral, civic, performance, and intellectual). During the research, across cases, we observed that Schools that had a singular, consistent philosophy, which was shared, understood, and implemented consistently, appeared to have a greater positive impact on students. The philosophy at these Schools seemed to provide the ‘north star’ for practices and policies in the institution and the plethora of different decisions made throughout the School.

In smaller Schools, it was often the case that educational philosophies were developed democratically and evolved over time but were consistent among all staff. In larger Schools, it is harder to involve everyone in the development of an educational philosophy. In these cases, a smaller leadership group tended to develop a philosophy and then educate the staff teams about the philosophy. In some Schools, the educational philosophy was explicitly and clearly based on Hahnian principles; in others, these principles were less pronounced. In some Schools, the educational philosophy is strongly connected to the broader political policy context; in others, it is not.

The philosophy of a School like Oman is clear and unified. In our observation, Oman’s priorities were clear. Discussions on Oman’s Vision 2040 were woven throughout courses. Staff helped students identify economic shifts in Oman and employability, with the aim of getting students to shift from government dependence for career options to more personal responsibility. A hard work ethic, personal responsibility, and resilience were prioritized outcomes.

Schools with fewer observed opportunities for character-related learning often had an unclear educational philosophy or philosophies, or staff had been given too much latitude to develop their own philosophies. Some Schools borrowed approaches from other Schools that were misaligned with their School’s philosophy and were ineffective. Several of the newer Schools we visited wrestled with copying curricular and training materials from more established Schools, lacking the philosophical through-line to adjust and adapt practices to their distinct operational context. This lack of coherence may create confusion for students who experience inconsistent implicit and/or explicit messages. There were also inconsistencies within the School itself in terms of messaging and focus. One School, for example, promoted outcomes externally that were not aligned with the priorities embedded in staff training, suggesting a gap between the School’s espoused educational philosophy and its operational delivery.

Service proposition.

When courses include meaningful service to others or the environment, character development opportunities appear to be more salient within the observed cases.

We define service as an intentional act of contributing time, effort, or resources to benefit others or the world around us. Service observed included service to nature, the OB group/center, or the broader community. OB courses, historically, have included a service component [1,3,4]. However, observations made during the study suggested variability in the role and form that service had on courses. Several Schools have strategically excluded service in their programming, whereas others have incorporated it in small ways (e.g., picking up trash during expeditions observed in Germany and UK cases). While serving others outside the group can be a powerful experience for students and has historic ties to service at OB, service activities do not require coordination with external groups. For example, students can experience service when serving the group (e.g., serving meals, cleaning, and helping each other build shelters). However, service must be meaningful to students to be experienced by participants as relevant within the course context.

Meaningful service depends heavily on the context of a course, but appeared most effective when integrated into the course experience. Observations and interviews with staff highlight how non-integrated or stand-alone service can feel inauthentic and disconnected from the rest of the course experience. Often, this type of service was described as a “check box”. However, integrated service is structured into the course from the beginning and in such a way that the acts of service are framed and embedded in course functions. Examples of this type of service include daily roles and chores, cooking meals for others, and practicing low-impact camping and travel techniques. This type of service to the group, when practiced daily and highlighted by instructors, was frequently associated with the expression of responsibility and compassion for others and the environment. When this becomes habitual, less proximal acts of service, such as picking up trash found on the trail or helping orient a lost hiker, appeared less inauthentic and more aligned with the habituated ethos of service on one’s course. An example of service becoming part of the course ethos was observed in Brazil. The whole course was framed around ‘to serve, to strive and not to yield’ (a common OB motto adapted from Tennyson’s Ulysses). This was the focus for many discussions and for accountability regarding behavior. This focus made sense given that the majority of students were from Favelas and were not short of perseverance, grit, or resilience. Thus, a focus on community and what kind of community they want to live in made sense. This emphasis led to a wide-ranging discussion, including their own group dynamics, and to increased discussion and interest in contributing to communities beyond the OB experience, such as family, faith congregation, or Favela.

Schools that did not include service as part of the course or included service superficially appeared less effective in providing opportunities for students to care for others and the environment. Schools that minimally included service often utilized simple, convenient activities (e.g., picking up trash along a trail), which often necessitated careful framing and debriefing to create engagement and meaning. While in some cases this less central approach was merely a lost opportunity, in other cases the “service” appeared tokenistic and off-putting to the students. We also noticed that programs in which the instructors did not frame or introduce the concept of service to others, whether formally or informally, often had less cohesive group dynamics, reducing opportunities for meaningful contributions to others.

Authentic adventure proposition.

As courses increasingly incorporate authentic adventure characteristics, they appear to offer more frequent and varied opportunities for character-related learning within the observed cases.

An explicit part of OBI’s PPP approach, we define authentic adventure as the immersive, challenging, and meaningful experiences (not activities) that push individuals to work near the edge of their capabilities (not comforts). Authentic adventure is rooted in real-world environments with natural consequences for the group, including instructional staff. It emphasizes physical and emotional engagement with nature and toward a goal, fostering personal growth, resilience, and character through direct, hands-on challenges. Regardless of momentary discomforts and struggles during the experience, authentic adventure is recalled as memorable and rewarding. Observations from this study identified that available elements of authentic adventure seemed to be associated with character development opportunities.

Immersive experiences involve being away from familiar contexts, removed from existing social structures, and limited in one’s distractions. The novelty of the immersive experience was highlighted in an observation from Hong Kong. On this course, most of the students had very little, if any, outdoor experience and were not used to so much time outside, camping, trekking or sea kayaking. Thus, teaching had to cover everything from applying sunscreen to bag packing, walking, hydration, and tent pitching. Not only was the natural environment novel for most young people, but also the hiking, group work, and cooking meals together. This was all carefully choreographed so that the experience was not overwhelming but rather progressive and maintained interest and engagement.

Challenging experiences are essential to pushing students toward and near the edge of their capabilities. Once near their perceived edge, students are confronted with the reality of their ability to do more than they thought possible. By design, this often takes the form of physical challenges; however, social, emotional, mental, and even moral challenges are all possible in the course experience. Sometimes these challenges are inherent in the course design, such as within the expedition. Even on the short course observed in Oman (4 days), the expedition allowed for authentic roles and responsibilities around camp (e.g., cooking, tent set up, and cleaning). Students were challenged by carrying a heavy pack on a relatively rugged hike while navigating off-trail terrain that necessitated group cooperation. In center-based courses, these challenges can be designed into the course. For example, in New Zealand, while at the OB center, all watches start the day with a group warm-up followed by a three-mile run. These activities are completed in silence in order to avoid disturbing local residents. This happens at 6 AM and is followed by a swim in the sea. A clock is visible so students can see their improvement in time as they progress through the course, and this process builds to the course marathon on the final day.

Natural consequences are a key function of the combination of an immersed natural environment and the use of challenge in this environment. Natural consequences can take the form of inclement weather, mistakes in navigation causing route-finding errors, and the inability to light a fire with damp wood, resulting in a cold (or non-existent) dinner. Unlike imposed consequences, such as when an instructor blindfolds an outspoken student to silence their voice, natural consequences are inherent in the activities. They generally impact the entire group, including the staff, and are, at times, preventable with increasing skills and responsibilities throughout the course. For example, observations from Vietnam highlight how two heavy days of rain impacted the group. The staff embraced the challenge, but when students were struggling too much with the adverse weather and challenging terrain, the group took an extended break, and students had the chance to learn how to skip rocks. The staff spoke about how important it was that youth struggled but didn’t suffer, and that students should feel challenged yet recall the adventure fondly rather than with bitterness.

A common goal is also a key element of authentic adventure. Whether this goal is physical, such as climbing to the top of a mountain summit, or emotional/mental, such as equitably distributing group gear and food and packing up camp, shared goals create authenticity within the adventure experience. Finally, adventurous experiences are recalled as memorable and rewarding. Given the hardships commonly faced during an authentic adventure, these experiences working together toward a shared goal can be powerful levers for character development.

Schools that minimally incorporate authentic adventure appeared less effective at engaging students in real-world problems and challenges and were forced to rely more on didactic instruction rather than experiential learning to develop character strengths. Some observed “adventure” activities functioned more as recreational diversions than as part of a core educational process. In other instances, programming prioritized completing activities (e.g., finishing a hike or ropes course element) over the learning they were intended to produce. As a result, there was limited use of real situations and their natural consequences, the foundation of authentic adventure, as drivers of meaningful development.

Educational models proposition.

The intentional application of appropriate educational models was consistently observed alongside opportunities for character development.

Central to process within the OBI PPP approach, educational models serve as guides for designing teaching and learning in courses. We define educational models as structured frameworks or tools that guide the design and implementation of teaching and learning experiences and promote student engagement, progression, and offer a common language for instructors and students. Commonly utilized models seen during observations include Frame, Frontload, Action, Review, Transfer (FFART), a Comfort Zones model, Training/Main/Final (TMF), and an Experiential Learning Cycle. These approaches offer structured pathways for students to engage in progressive and often transformative learning experiences.

We observed educational models utilized at several levels or planning phases of courses, which allows for building appropriate progressions. At the broadest level, models can shape the overall delivery of courses starting in the planning phase. This manifests through the course design of activities and itineraries to scaffold opportunities for character development. For example, TMF can be used to design a course’s itinerary to provide increasing opportunities for student responsibility, autonomy, and challenge. Models are also used in the day-to-day planning and implementation of courses. Each day can be structured using an educational model. For example, FFART was used by instructors to sequence the whole day’s activities, framing and frontloading to students the whole day’s plan, proceeding with a series of activities, and then reviewing the entire day in an evening meeting debrief. Finally, models can be used discretely for individual activity experiences. For example, a Comfort Zone model is often used to introduce and prepare students for a high ropes course experience. This model introduces concepts of edgework and our ability to grow as we near the edge of our capabilities, which are different for each student, but is the goal of the challenging activity. The scalability in the use of educational models is an important takeaway for practitioners.

The use of educational models also contributes to experiences being made meaningful, applicable, and transferable to students’ learning. This was particularly evident in the U.K. case study. Instructors at this School built courses around student strengths and pre-established “frames” that were used interchangeably depending on desired course outcomes and client base. The schoolteachers accompanying this group noted how effective the frames were and how the students picked up and used the language of the frame throughout the course (5Ps, passenger, protester, prisoner, participant, pilot; and comfort zone specifically). Another example of the effective use of models was observed in Vietnam. Students were provided a journal that they used to take notes and to align with the curriculum that the course director created. Through this journal, students were introduced to several models and common language used in their course, such as experiential learning (with the explicit goal of transferring what they learn at OB to their daily lives), the importance of stepping out of their comfort zone to facilitate learning, identifying values to focus on throughout the week, and reflecting on their experiences to understand how these experiences can support their lives outside of the program.

Less effective model use can seem disjointed, and was observed when instructors included models effective in some settings, but misaligned with their School’s course design or philosophy. This was also the case when instructors utilized multiple models that did not connect well with one another or when models seemed to be lifted and dropped from one context to another with only a shallow grasp of the models. In some cases, too many models were introduced, which diluted their utility.

As a counterpoint to the advantage of educational models, in one of the courses observed, the instructors approached the course more organically, without explicitly applying models common on other OB courses. These instructors appeared highly successful in offering character opportunities without the explicit inclusion of educational models. However, it should be noted that this course was also longer and had older students. In another case, a Comfort Zone model was combined with a “challenge-by-choice” approach in a way that allowed participants to disengage. Instructors did not feel as if they could push their students to engage in activities because students said they weren’t “comfortable” when really the students appeared more disinterested and disengaged. Thus educational models, like other approaches, need to be employed intentionally and coherently to be effective.

Instructor behavior propositions.

We define instructor behaviors as the ways that instructors implement courses to create relationships, build course culture, leverage instructional strategies, and adapt to student needs. Given the diversity and complexity of productive instructor behaviors, this proposition is further considered as three subparts: relationship and culture building, instructional strategies, and adaptability. We have chosen to present our propositions at the sub-category level and have detailed individual instructor behaviors in the following paragraphs.

Instructor behaviors that prioritize course culture appear to support character development opportunities.

Course culture and rapport with students are foundational to creating student buy-in for the experience, understanding students’ expectations and motivations, and building trust to later be used to encourage students in challenging activities. Observations from Chesapeake Bay (USA) highlight rapport building and describe the benefits of having two instructor team members for this task. Having two instructors allowed a lot more flexibility in the ebb and flow of relationships. Acting as a pair, they could switch roles from driver or disciplinarian to mentor/friend and allow the other instructor to fill in the gaps. The motto was “Firm, Fair, Fun.” Given the nature of a 5-day program, they made choices appropriately to balance rapport, expectations, and program needs. Building rapport with the students was one of the main themes of the program/goals of the instructors. The instructor team was very much part of the group, not outside the group, yet at the same time, the emphasis was on moving from “instructor-led” in the first couple of days to more student-led at the end of the expedition. Efforts were put into engaging with the students – puzzles, riddles, and games while hiking and in the evening through sharing personal stories, observations, or anecdotes.

Mealtimes represent a differentially utilized opportunity to connect with students, build rapport, and establish the group culture. Our study observations noted the role shared meals with the student group had on relationships and the course’s culture. Mealtimes at many OB Schools present downtime where course-related goals are paused, giving staff an opportunity to get to know students better without the pressures of facilitating activities or prescribed learning outcomes. An example of a robust mealtime routine was observed in Brazil. For the first few nights, the instructors took the lead on cooking and organizing meals with increasing involvement and tasks from the group as they became faster at pitching tents and setting up camp. When meals were ready, the group gathered and waited for everyone to be served. There was a pause and an appreciation of the cooks, and the meal was shared as a community with lively, informal conversations, occasionally encouraged by the instructors via a timely question or observation.

Traditions can also build culture on a course, aiding in students’ developing a sense of belonging and group cohesion. The run-and-dip is a common OB tradition, where students run and then go for a swim. Variations of this tradition were observed at several schools, including the OB Trust, OB New Zealand, and OB Hong Kong. Pinning and graduation ceremonies are likewise parts of the OB tradition that many Schools retain to create shared experiences across the larger OB community. Regionally, traditions can also be used to integrate with and capitalize on local cultures. OB Croatia does all their cooking over open fires; while this is a tradition for the School, it is also a traditional way to life in the local community. Similarly, OB Oman serves meals in a group from a single pot; students do not use utensils and pray several times each day. This integration of regional religious norms and traditions strengthens the cultural connections, both within the course and the larger community.

Instructional strategies that are intentionally employed appear to support character development opportunities.

Instructional strategies were common across the cases. However, we noted that several effective strategies were used differently across the observed Schools. Specifically, individual and group reflection, framing activities for context, and incorporating designated roles with concomitant responsibilities into the course.

Whether a few minutes or a few days, individual student reflection is a powerful part of the learning process and helps connect course experiences and learnings to their own way of knowing and thinking. This process can help solidify learnings and transfer learnings into post-course contexts. Observations at Chesapeake Bay (USA) documented a large variety and emphasis on individual reflection methods. Reflection was incorporated into the course design, and its structure provides ample opportunities for authentic feedback and reflection. As is common across programs, different reflection strategies work better with some students than others. Some observed strategies included personal journaling, letters to future self, and solos. The solo as an individual reflection activity was observed across many Schools, with some Schools using shorter solo moments (30–60 minutes) as a pause between activities and other Schools facilitating overnight solos.

Similar to individual reflection, group reflections help student groups process and solidify their learning. However, the function of the group in this shared process contributes to learning about interacting with others, teamwork, and individual roles within group work. In the short term, group reflections can aid groups in increased performance on subsequent activities. Long-term, these reflections can help students understand how they work in groups and increase their ability to communicate, collaborate, and connect with others. An example from the Romania observation describes how students are offered the opportunity to give constructive and kind feedback to one another, and they are given non-verbal opportunities to reflect on one another. In one observed activity, students were instructed to “touch the shoulder of the person who helped you the most today.” Another observed activity included a “fish tank,” where members of one team provide feedback to each other in front of the larger group, then the larger group is able to add to the feedback. This is done to help students get a more honest, authentic picture of themselves.

Instructors who can frame a need for each activity are more effective at progressing students through meaningful learning in the course. Almost any activity can be framed in multiple ways. Knowing how to set up and frame an activity so it positively and meaningfully contributes to the students’ experience and learning is an important instructor behavior. Hong Kong’s course was framed through an intentional tone set. When individuals introduced themselves at the beginning of the course, they were also prompted to share something about their character and what they wanted to change about themselves over the week. For example, one student shared that they could have a temper and be lazy and wanted to change that this week. The goal was for students to push each other. They then closed the framing by jumping off the jetty into the ocean to signify the beginning of the transformation.

Through the use of roles and chores, opportunities for service within the group aid in developing responsibility and compassion for the group members. Roles were common across case studies, but how they were used varied in centrality, responsibilities, and number. One common role was student leader of the day. Chesapeake Bay (USA) in-field resources demonstrate clear roles and responsibilities, including: Leader of the Day (navigation and time management), Chefs (cooking), Survivalists (bear hang, hydration, camp sweep), and Scrubbies (organize kitchen, clean dishes).

Courses that are adaptable to students’ needs appear to support character development opportunities.

Even the best-laid plans might fall apart when the student group arrives, with their expectations, motivations, goals, and strengths. Instructors are, therefore, instrumental in their ability to adjust the plan and the whole course design to the needs of the student group in front of them. For example, if a group is getting along well and exhibiting a high level of connection and cohesion, an Instructor might opt to skip some icebreaker initiatives and move into more challenging problem-solving tasks early in the course. On the other hand, a group that is struggling to pack up and leave camp on time might benefit from a rest day and some individual coaching on backpack packing and how to help one another with shared tasks. Observations from Croatia detail the benefits of instructor autonomy during an expedition. When students were supposed to cross a river, instructors realized that the river was much higher than anticipated, given the recent rain. Therefore, the challenge was much more difficult than anticipated and involved bush-pushing (off-trail travel) and additional navigation, as students had to find another way over the river. This was a big challenge for several students. One instructor offered, “That is not what we planned, but it is what happened,” which reflects the flexible nature of the course.

Operating constraints can reduce flexibility in time management. Time management is an effective lever when instructors can adapt it to the needs of the student group. Courses with a high level of authentic adventure, which might be journey-based and remote, might find that the timing of the day must accommodate not only the day’s objectives, but also weather, level of group cohesion, and skill, among other factors. If the route is easy, the pace of the day can be quite relaxed, perhaps enabling more focus on group dynamics and connections or formal lessons. If the route is challenging or the weather is adding too many hazards, the management of the day may be stricter and more instructor-led. Conversely, courses with lower authentic adventure may be subject to stricter time schedules to accommodate a sample of activities, including firmly set mealtimes at a dining hall in a center-based program. In such settings, time management must be stricter to adhere to the schedule. This also creates opportunities for responsibility within the student group for timekeeping and timeliness. A balance of strict and flexible time management was observed at Chesapeake Bay (USA). The five-day schedule and some immovable programming (e.g., the climbing day) made time management central to the program. However, staff had great flexibility within windows (e.g., on an expedition day). They could delay lunch until as late as 2:00 to accommodate AM activities, and could eat dinner late if the day’s activities dictated when they got into/set up camp. The staff used a group journal to ensure most courses included the intended elements. This provided structure to the student leaders of the day without constant instructor direction. High-functioning groups could use this journal to manage their flow through the day with less instructional support as the course progressed.

Like other instructor behaviors, facilitation styles are most effective when they are tailored to student needs. This might mean leveraging certain leadership styles or voices (directive or democratic) to encourage student involvement or activity success, depending on the activity learning outcomes. The facilitation skill of OB staff was captured during observations in Germany. Below were researcher notes throughout the observed course, which describe the variety of techniques and attunement of instructors to the needs of the group.

• During this activity, the instructor provided the students with a walkie-talkie to further give the impression that students were leading alone (although they remained in eyesight, and he became more involved when the hike turned more technical).
• The instructor stayed a bit removed from the group, friendly but not central, in an effort to force the group to work together and support one another.
• Instructors take care to manage the group dynamics; given the shorter nature of the course, they are careful not to push the group dynamics to a point where they cannot find resolution prior to the end. This requires observation and for the instructor to alternate between giving the group space to work through things and getting more involved when tension feels high.
• The staff is incredibly skilled at “attention bending,” ensuring that the discussion relates to the lessons and needs of the group. They are highly skilled at choosing appropriate activities for the group and using them based on group needs.

Similar to educational models, instructor behaviors that were mismatched with other levers at play were observed to offer fewer opportunities for students to consider character development. Often, the other levers at play, such as authentic adventure or service, which are commonly designed into a course, seemed harder to adjust, while adjusting specific instructor behaviors might be more flexible. Instructors who tended to statically utilize certain behaviors, regardless of the course type, student group, or course outcomes, were less effective. An example of this mismatch was a course structure with a high need for facilitating activities, with little downtime for getting to know students, and then instructors opting to have mealtimes separate from students. Sharing mealtimes in this scenario would have been a good opportunity for rapport building outside of highly structured activities. Another example was when instructors would minimally frame activities, that were important to frame, to connect them to larger educational models in use. When using the FFART model, failing to frame an activity, or debrief and connect to a subsequent activity, lessens the effectiveness of the activity itself.