THE IMPACT OF ADVENTURE-BASED TRAINING ON TEAM COHESION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN ELITE SPORTING TEAMS

Individual Attraction To The Group-Social Sub-Scale Results

A summary of descriptive statistics for the ATG-S sub-scale appears in Table 4. This sub-scale was calculated with the highest possible score being 45.

Table 4: Means and standard deviations for 4 time measures of ATG-S sub-scale ´ 3 groups.

Using a most conservative interpretation of the ATG-S repeated measures data analysis, it can be concluded that the test was also approaching significance. With this result, the lines in Figure 3 were treated as not being parallel; meaning that some kind of interaction had taken place between groups over time, in other words, some kind of change had taken place.

Figure 3: Repeated measures analysis showing interaction between groups and time on the ATG-S sub-scale.

These diverging trends were examined by analysis of variance across each measure of time for group differences. No significant differences were noted across the first two time measures, however, significant group differences were recorded at time 3 [F(2, 27)=3.663; p=.039], and time 4 [F(2, 27)=5.429; p=.010] (See Table 5).

Post hoc Bonferroni analysis however, did not discern any significant differences at time 3. Further post hoc analysis at time 4 identified significant difference between the Control group and the Under 17 team (p=.016), and the Control group and Under 19 team (p=.041) (See Table 6).

Figure 4 shows the effect sizes for each group on the ATG-S sub-scale. A particularly large negative effect was seen between times 1-2 for the control group. A large positive change occurred for the Under 17 team between times 2-3. The same improvement was not seen in the Under 19 team; this could be a result of the ceiling effect of their data.   

Table 5: Analysis of Variance for ATG_S sub-scale across 4 time measures         

Table 6: Post Hoc analysis showing multiple comparison of ATG-S sub-scale at time 4

Figure 4: Comparison of effect size change for three groups across time for ATG-S subscale.

Group Integration-Task Sub-Scale Results

A summary of descriptive statistics for the GI-T sub-scale appears in Table 7. This sub-scale was calculated with the highest possible score being 45.

Table 7: Means and standard deviations for 4 time measures of GI-T sub-scale ´ 3 groups.

Analysis of the GI-T data indicated a significant result. Interaction between the independent variables time and teams was again measured using both multivariate and univariate analysis (See Figure 5). These diverging trend were examined by analysis of variance across each measure of time for group differences. No significant differences were noted across the first two time measures, however, significant group differences were recorded at time 3 [F(2, 27)=4.760; p=.017], and time 4 [F(2, 27)=5.564; p=.009] (See Table 8). Post hoc Bonferroni analysis at time 3 indicated a significant difference between the Under 19 and Under 17 groups (p=.030) (See Table 9). While, analysis of time 4 revealed a significant divergence between the Control group and the Under 17 team (p=.008) (See Table 10).

Figure 5: Repeated measures analysis showing interaction between groups and time on the GI-T sub-scale.    

Table 8:Analysis of Variance for GI-T sub-scale across 4 time measures.

Table 9: Post Hoc analysis showing multiple comparison of GI-T at time 3.

Table 10: Post Hoc analysis showing multiple comparison of GI-T at time 4.

Figure 6 shows the effect sizes for each group on the GI-T sub-scale. A positive change occurred for the Under 17 team between times 2-3. Similar indications of a large and notable effect can be seen for the Under 19 team between times 3-4. Increases of this size indicate that a very large degree of change occurred within these two groups after the intervention.

Figure 6: Comparison of effect size change for three groups across time for GI-T subscale.

Group Integration-Social Sub-Scale Results

A summary of descriptive statistics for the GI-S sub-scale appears in Table 11. This sub-scale was calculated with the highest possible score being 36. Means for all groups in this sub-scale were notably lower than the previous three sub-scales.

Table 11:Means and standard deviations for 4 time measures of GI-S sub-scale ´ 3 groups.

Analysis of the GI-S data indicated no significant interaction between the independent variables time and teams (See Figure 7). With these results, one can conclude that the lines in Figure 7 can be considered close to parallel, meaning that no interaction had taken place between groups over time. As this initial examination of the data indicated no significant interaction between groups with respect to the team members social integration.

Figure 7: Repeated measures analysis showing interaction between groups and time on the GI-S sub-scale

Summary

Collectively these quantitative results indicated that the Under 17 and Under 19 teams underwent some kind of group cohesion change during the adventure-based intervention. Also of note is the steady decrease in control group scores across time in the ATG-T and ATG-S scores. These quantitative results will later be integrated with the qualitative data in the discussion in an attempt to gain an understanding of the athletes’ perspective as to the efficacy of the intervention.

Qualitative Results

Neill (1998) called for future research in adventure programming to clearly outline the process involved in adventure-based programming. The qualitative approach was most appropriate to address these process questions. In addition, the qualitative data can add validity to the outcome variables that were studied through quantitative analysis (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996).

A variety of methods were used to obtain qualitative data during the investigation, these included: observations, several types of interviews including: focus group interviews, activity debriefing, individual phenomenological interviews, informal conversational interviews, photography, and video.

Observations occurred during all aspects of the weekend intervention as well as netball training and competitions up to and including the national championships. The qualitative results were reported using the “outcome” and “process” nature of the research questions as a guiding structure. The research questions were:

From an athletes’ or coaches’ perspective, what were the major outcomes of the adventure-based training program; and how did they impact most upon the team in the following areas:

1) Personally, 2) In developing teamwork and team cohesion, and 3) Transferability to specific netball competition situations?

a. What new skills or knowledge about themselves or other teammates did individuals take away with them from the adventure-based training camp?

b. How did the team or individuals within the team change because of their adventure experience? What new skills were developed that helped the team?

c. Was there any direct evidence that psychological skills learnt during the adventure training camp were directly transferable to netball training or competition?

From an athletes’ or coaches’ perspective, what processes during the adventure-based training weekend had the most impact on the team? What was it about these situations that made them so beneficial?

a. What elements of the adventure-based training intervention had the most impact on athletes? Why was this significant for these athletes?

b. How did this camp differ (if at all), from previous adventure-based training camps, which the athletes had been on in the past?

c. How did the outdoor bush environment impact on the program? Was it an advantage or a disadvantage traveling away from their usual training venues?

Outcome Results

The qualitative interviews conducted during the research project were rich in athlete testimony as to the efficacy of the intervention and its transferability back to netball. Figure 8 summarises the key findings of the qualitative interviews that contributed to the outcomes of the adventure-based training intervention. Three general dimensions of categories were identified; group-cohesion, improved on court performance, and changes outside of netball.

Process Results

Meyer and Wenger (1998) identified a theoretical perspective, “Lewin’s change theory”, to explain the process that underpinned their adventure training intervention with athletes. While their study identified several implications for practice, they state that, “continued questioning and further study are clearly necessary in order to better understand the processes through which adventure education outcomes are achieved (with sporting teams), and to ensure that this knowledge is translated into improved practice” (p. 263).

This present investigation set about examining in detail, the processes of the adventure-based intervention. After the outcomes of the adventure-based intervention were identified, the data was re-examined in an effort to explain the processes through which the outcomes were achieved. This being part of the recommendations to future researchers by Neil (1998) and Anderson (1994). The raw data, along with several theoretical paradigms were examined to identify the theoretical perspective, which best fit or explained the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Kurt Lewin’s change theory was utilised by Meyer & Wenger (1998) to explain the results of their investigation. This present study replicated this approach in order to determine whether Lewin’s theory was appropriate in explaining changes within an interacting netball team, as opposed to a co-acting tennis team, as was the case with Meyer & Wenger work. While Lewin’s model will be used as a framework for explaining the processes of the intervention, other existing constructs that align with Lewin’s model will be woven into this framework to give greater understanding of why the outcomes occurred.

Figure 9 summarises factors contributing to the process through which the adventure-based training outcomes were achieved.

DISCUSSION

This summary section is included in order to synthesise the key findings from the results section of this research project in a context that corresponds with the research questions. Each research question will lead a brief overview of the findings pertinent to that area of the investigation.

Quantitative Findings

Research Questions

Athletes who received an adventure-based training program intervention, would show increased team cohesion when compared to a control group.

The duration of the intervention will see longitudinal improvements in all four sub-scales of team cohesion, when compared to a control group. Results of the quantitative analysis on these two questions clearly demonstrated that athletes in both treatment groups increased cohesion and that these improvements were increased and maintained throughout the duration of the investigation. This however, was only evident from a statistical point of view, in three of the four subscales.

These results reflected strong but only partial support for the original research hypotheses. Results did not reflect improvement of all subscales as was hypothesised. Given this shortcoming, however, the results can be considered extremely significant due to the ceiling effect in the data. One wonders if significance would have been further improved if groups had room to score higher on subsequent GEQ data collections.

Of special note were the very large and significant effect size scores for both treatment groups on the task related subscales. These statistical gains were also effectively triangulated by the qualitative data. Given this, the reader should feel confident that the findings are supported by strong validity.The longitudinal element of the hypotheses are again not fully supported, however the improvements in cohesion that were made early in the intervention were maintained through to time 4 just before the national championships. This would indicate that the learning from the intervention and the support infrastructure to maintain these gains was very effective. The quantitative data results were strongly supported by the qualitative data. The following summarises the findings from the qualitative research questions:

Qualitative Outcome Findings

Team Cohesion

It can be concluded from the rich accounts of athletes’ and coaches’ experiences, that the adventure-based training program had a major impact on the team cohesion of both the Under 17 and Under 19 netball teams. The following summarises the major trends in the team cohesion qualitative results.

As a result of the intervention and the learning sequence the athletes were exposed to, relationships within both teams improved. This was especially evident within the under 19 team. Players improved their communication, trust and camaraderie, dysfunctional cliques dissolved, and players were able to resolve conflict that had led to dysfunctional behaviour and below par performances in the past.

Being involved in a shared experience that required teammates and coaching staff to work together to overcome adversity was instrumental in improving social relations within the team. Individual players had self-doubt as to their ability to perform many of the challenging adventure training tasks under adverse conditions. They developed however, awareness of their inefficiency and worked at applying skills that would improve their performance as a team. With these improved social and task skills, came a new determination to succeed. There was tremendous team interdependence around performing at the nationals, athletes believed they could win and set about taking a confident and focused attitude into all team performances.

Improved group-cohesion among the NSW netball players created an atmosphere of intense social and task bonding around the goal of winning a national championship, this attitude was supported by psychological skills to help athletes cope with the stresses of competition.

Increased ability to maintain concentration and control anxiety levels

The adventure based training intervention was designed to continually test and challenge the athletes ability to maintain their focus on a set task despite the intentional distractions and twists that would appear when the athletes least expected it.

These distractions included:

· Ending up at an 80 metre cliff and having to abseil off it during “a bush walk”.

· Having to cook dinner and clean up after 12 hours of hiking.

· Expecting to have hot showers in cabins, only to find a cold bucket of water waiting behind a clump of bushes.

· Expecting to sleep in tents but the tents were forgotten.

· Being woken at sunrise by bagpipes and having to complete a team swim.

· Being confronted with a claustrophobic caving experience, then having your lights taken from you, and then being required to work as a team to find your way out in the dark.

These twists in the adventure component of the intervention were designed to metaphor the distractions and pressures of elite sporting competition, deliberately creating anxiety levels that would mirror or exceed those of athletic competition. Players were challenged to monitor their thoughts and behaviours during these testing times. When distracted or overwhelmed they had to refocus their concentration, or use new mental skills to regain their composure so the team task that had been set for them could be completed. Athletes and coaches during this time experienced first hand the application of sport psychology techniques that eventually would be used on the netball court.

Increased Individual and Team Confidence

The adventure training intervention challenged athletes’ perceptions of what was possible. The structure of the intervention and the way it continually increased in challenge tested existing beliefs of what was possible and had athletes and coaches extending their self imposed comfort zones into realms of new possibilities. A strong metaphor within the treatment teams developed around what had been achieved during the adventure challenges where they learnt to work as a team. This success and accompanying feelings of confidence, and the attitude to work as one around a common goal, transferred back to netball training and competition.

Transfer of Learning from the Adventure Experience to Netball

The real test of this intervention’s success was whether the learning that took place during the adventure-training weekend would be transferred and benefit the athletes’ sporting endeavours on the netball court at the national championships. Athlete’s accounts of the implementation of skills learnt during the adventure training intervention, gave clear and unequivocal support for the notion of transfer from the adventure setting to netball. Rich athlete testimony gave accounts of the team being present for one another in the heat of competition, never giving up even when on the ropes, fighting their way out of trouble through a strong belief that “they could do it”, were common team themes. Individual athletes gave strong testimony of how the metaphor for caving helped them control anxiety levels in the pressure of goal shooting. Coaches described the use of centering and breathing control to maintain composure when under stress. All participants in the intervention believed that the adventure based training intervention had a major part in the teams success at netball nationals.

Qualitative Process Findings

It was an important goal of this investigation to attempt to identify the processes that enhanced and were beneficial in helping participants change and pull together as a team. Several key factors were identified as being instrumental in the success of the intervention.

The Adventure Environment: A Place for change!

Taking athletes away from their normal training venues into the outdoor environment was a great success; this initiative provided several benefits. The new and novel setting, with its ability to create stress and disequilibrium were a catalyst for growth and change. Through appropriate sequencing of activities, the level of stress was continually adjusted to meet the goals of the athletes. This allowed for experimentation with new psychological skills designed to help “self-monitor” and “self-regulate” an optimal performance state. These skills were then utilised by athletes as a team, both in the adventure setting and back at netball.

There is a paradoxical side to the above physical and psychological challenges the outdoor environment offers. The bush also provides a neutral ground where equals are created among those who venture into her depths; this was very evident in resolving deep negative team issues during the bush walk. During the hike, reflection and thinking about self and others led to open and honest communication that the teams had not previously experienced. This resulted in debilitating clique issues and poor communication practices being resolved. Players and coaches believed that these team improvements would not have occurred if they had remained back at their normal training venue.

The Role of the Facilitator as Change Agent

This investigation had its starting point at a national coaching conference where the coach of one of the NSW teams took the researcher to task over the negative experiences her team had had the previous year while attending a different adventure training program. From analysis and comparison of the teams adventure experiences, clear recommendations emerged.

Any program must ensure the matching of client’s goals and preferred learning styles with the skills of the facilitator. During previous adventure based training camps the NSW netball team required a developmental style of program but received a recreational one instead; players and coaches were left disillusioned. From this learning, the facilitation process in this investigation took a high priority in matching the teams needs, with an intervention that had strong isomorphic and metaphoric links to netball.

Players and coaches felt that this intervention provided these strong links through the way activities were presented and framed. Facilitators whether they are from an educational or sport psychology background, can learn from these lessons. The facilitator can be the real catalyst for change or recipe for disaster!

In addition to the above, this study adds to Lewin’s Change Theory where a change agent (facilitator) was seen as being critically important in all phases of the change process; Unfreezing, moving and refreezing, not just moving and refreezing as the previous theory had suggested. 

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This study produced a substantial body of evidence supporting the efficacy of adventure-based training as a valid and viable methodology for enhancing the team cohesion and psychological skills development of elite athletes. In addition, an unexpected, but more significant outcome of the intervention was the positive and powerful impact the adventure experience had on the athletes’ performances in sporting competition. The evidence presented by those who participated in the intervention painted a vivid picture of a unique life changing experience that clearly played a major part in both NSW team’s success, in winning their respective national championships.

The outcomes and benefits for the athletes and coaches that underwent the intervention cannot be simply dismissed as a fringe teaching methodology for sport. Unmistakably, adventure-based training can make a difference to sporting team’s and their performance. Coaches and sport psychologists that are searching for a training method that could give players the edge should consider incorporating adventure-based training into their yearly training programs.

As well as implications for practice, this study made a strong contribution to research in the field of adventure-based training by demonstrating the transferability of learned skills from the adventure environment to the athletes’ lives on the sporting field and beyond. In the past adventure-based training had received much criticism for its inability to produce research that demonstrated the efficacy of its methodologies. This study helps to reverse this trend by adding to the growing body of knowledge supporting the power of adventure-based training to impact on and change participants’ lives.

BIOGRAPHY

Dr Ian Boyle is an outdoor education teacher in Kangaroo Valley NSW. He loves sport and adventures in the outdoors. He can be contacteded by e-mail on: i.boyle@tsc.nsw.edu.au and is happy to provide a full electronic version of this thesis to anyone who emails!

Allain, M. (1996). The Effect of Adventure-Based Training on Team Cohesion. Unpublished Master Thesis Dalhosue University, Canada.  

Anderson, L, S. (1994). Outdoor adventure recreation and social integration. A social-psychological perspective. Unpublished PHD thesis. University of Minnesota, USA. 

Bisson, C. (1997). The effects of varying the sequence of categories of adventure activities on the development of group cohesion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nth Colorado.  

Burns, R, B. (1994). Introduction to Research Methods. Longman Cheshire P/L. Melbourne. Australia. Carron, A. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups. Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4, 123-138. 

Carron, A., Brawley, L. & Widmeyer, W. (1985) The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport

Hardy, L., Jones, G. &  Gould, D. (1996). Understanding Psychological Preparation for Sport. John Wiley & sons publishers. 

Henderson, K. (1993). The yin and yang of experiential education research. Journal of Experiential Education. 16(3), 49-54. 

Henderson, K. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to recreation, parks, and leisure research. Venture Publishing. State College, PA. 

Kilty, K, A. & Meyer, B, B. (1999). Effective ropes/adventure interventions. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology annual conference. Banff, Alberta, Canada. September.  

Meyer, B. (2000). The Ropes and Challenge Course. A Quasi Experimental Examination. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 90, 1249-1257. 

Meyer, B, B. & Grochowski, D, O. (1999). The ropes course experience: a quasi-experimental examination. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Hyannis, MA. 

Meyer, B, B. & Wenger, M, S. (1998). Atheletes and adventure education. An empirical investigation. International Jounal of Sport Psychology. 29: 243-266. 

Neill, J. (1998).Does outdoor education really work? A summary of recent meta analyses. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. (3)1, 2-9. 

Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1992). Five generations of facilitated learning from adventure experiences. The Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership. 10(3), 23-25. 

Rohnke, K. (1984). Silver Bullets. Project Adventure Inc. Publishers. 

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications. Weinberg, R, S. & Gould, D. (1995).

Foundations of Sport and Excercise Psychology. Human Kinetics. Champaign, Ill.