A powerful

opening
Locus of Control Development to Support
Academic Interventions in Service Schools
Ken Turner
L4L5, UW
(Final) July 2014
Acronyms and Vocabulary
Challenge Courses- the preferred educational
term for low or high ropes course
ELL- English language learners
Locus of Control- extent to which participants
believe they can control events that affect them
Service schools- Seattle Public Schools new
terminology for alternative schools
SIFE- students with interrupted formal education
Problems of Practice
Students-at-risk tend to have a high external locus of control
(Lindsay and Newberry, 2000)

Facilitators (adult learners) are not prepared to instruct unique
populations (ELL/ refugee students and severely at-risk
students)

Leaders (myself) are lacking Instructional Frameworks for
facilitators to develop them to work with unique populations.
Hypothesis
If students participate in an
'intervention cohort' of challenge
course and climbing sessions at the
Mountaineers, Camp Long, and an
outdoor climbing expedition, they
can shift to an internal locus of
control and develop academic
resilience.

Theory of Action

If Leaders understand facilitator areas of
growth to work with students at risk

If Facilitators understand student needs
and tailor facilitation to reach students


If Classroom teachers reinforce student
learning from the challenge course and
weave it into the classroom



Facilitator Training, Jan 2014 photo: KOT


Then students will
develop the life skills
they need to develop an
internal Locus of Control

My leadership over the year
Pushed for changes in our post survey format to a Pre/ Post Survey that
was vetted by WSU Internal Review Board
Recruited Interagency and The Mountaineers to switch from one visit to a
adventure education sequence based on our data from April 2013
(Appendix A)
Worked with Concie at Seattle World School to replicate the Interagency
plan to adopt it for her older population (18-21).
Drafted two grants, one from Keen footwear and the other for Seattle
Parks, to cover portions of school visits.

Historic Challenge Course data
Challenge courses are an effective tool
for impacting a variety of educational
and psychological constructs with a
variety of participants (Gillis/
Speelman, 2008)
Increased self-efficacy in middle school
students (Conley, Calarella, and Young,
2007)
And Loci of Control study (Lindsay and
Newberry, 2000)

Suggested Adventure Education Sequence
For Greatest Benefit
3-4 hour Low
Course
3-4 hour Rock
Climbing/
Belaying
3-4 hour
advanced Low
Course
Experience
3-4 hour High
Course
Experience
June rock
climbing
expedition
*
* = self-efficacy
Changing our data collection process
Communication Decision making
Adapted from: Klein, et al. 2006
Development and Factor Structure
of a Brief Instrument to Assess the
Impact of Community Programs on
Positive Youth Development: The
Rochester Evaluation of Asset
Development for Youth (READY)
Tool. Journal of Adolescent Health

Measure of original scale reliability:
Cronbachs Alpha = .66

Adapted from: Klein, et al. 2006
Development and Factor Structure of
a Brief Instrument to Assess the
Impact of Community Programs on
Positive Youth Development: The
Rochester Evaluation of Asset
Development for Youth (READY)
Tool. Journal of Adolescent Health

Measure of original scale reliability:
Cronbachs Alpha = .71

Teamwork Self-efficacy
Adapted from: Annett, et al.
2000. A Method for
Measuring Team Skills.
Ergonomics

Face Validity no reliability
score yet established.

Adapted from: Sherer, et al.,
1982 The Self-efficacy scale:
Construction and Validation.
Psychological Reports

Measure of original scale
reliability:
Cronbachs Alpha = .86

Preliminary Data collecting so far
Sample: 16 groups
272 participants
(avg. 17 participants per group)
Satisfaction
93% of participants said they enjoyed
their experience at Camp Long
(211 of 227 participants)

New instructional framework
for facilitators
Adapted 4-tier growth model
from an existing 4H observation
form
I have stepped out of a
facilitator role into
predominantly coaching and
observing capacity.


Low Course Observation Formv2


Name of 4-H Challenge Facilitator Observer Date

This is a mentoring process, not a test. The feedback and dialogue between you and the observer is vital to the
process, talk about how you want to receive feedback before the day begins.

Sequencing: (Attach a copy of the sequence. Indicate activities the observed leader led.)
1. Is the sequence of activities appropriate for the groups goals & level of readiness? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
2. Does the sequence include essential activities (Welcome, FVC, spotting, etc.) Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
3. Did the observed facilitator adjust the sequence as needed/ when necessary? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
Notes of Strengths/ Challenges



Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Welcome/FVC/Health Check:
1. Was the observed facilitator organized and prepared when the group arrived? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
2. Did they orient the group to the facilities to be used, and process the necessary paperwork? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
3. Did the welcome give credit to the major supports of the program? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
4. Was a Full Value Contract developed, did the participants buy into it, was it utilized throughout the day?
Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
5. Was a Health check used effectively throughout the day? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
6. Were the Challenge Commands taught and used consistently throughout the day? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
Notes of Strengths/ Challenges



Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Facilitation:
1. Were lead up activities used effectively to set the tone for the day and assess the group's level of readiness? Yes/
No/ Not Obs.
2. Did the observed facilitator use an appropriate facilitation style, covering safety, objectives, and story lines
when applicable? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
3. Did the observed facilitator work effectively with their co-facilitator? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
Notes of Strengths/ Challenges



Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Spotting/Support-Trust:
1. Did the facilitator stress the importance of spotting, teach and demonstrate it thoroughly? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
2. Were support and trust building activities appropriately used within the group's level of readiness? Yes/ No/
Not Obs.
3. Was thorough spotting modeled and used on all elements? Yes/ No/ Not Obs.
Notes of Strengths/ Challenges
Seattle World School
Target Audience is 30 students aged 18-
21 from refugee populations, many
SIFE
10 different languages spoken in this
cohort
Plan includes 5 adventure education
trips
SWS belaying at Mountaineers, March 2014
Photo: KOT
Interagency Academy
Target audience is three different
cohorts (15 students each); students are
multi-aged with 9
th
grade credit
Most highly traumatized population of
youth I have ever worked
Each cohort would stay intact and
different cohorts would not be on course
together.
Sequence of 6 adventure education trips


Interagency Academy Data 2014 (quantitative)
Pretest vs. Posttest over 3 visits
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
pretest
posttest
Interagency Data Set (qualitative comments)
Word Cloud represents all
qualitative comments
from what was the best
part of your day
question on post test.

Our metric teamwork
comes up very high in the
word cloud.



Seattle World School Data
SWS data was incomplete; most students were
not able to complete the English worded pre/
post surveys.

From multiple teacher and translator
interviews, the female students had the
strongest growth from their qualitative
observations. They were empowered to take
ownership in their groups, instead of letting
the men do all the work.


Claims and Evidence: students
CLAIM: Interagency Academy students showed growth in teamwork and
slight improvement in decision-making, this can align to increase Locus of
Control.
EVIDENCE: Through qualitative comments and quantitative metrics,
teamwork showed significant change while decision-making was on the
cusp of significance.
CLAIM: Female SWS students showed slight observable increases in their
own Locus on Control, but not measurable.
EVIDENCE (weak): Only through anecdotal observations, did support
staff see any life skill changes.

Claims and Evidence: educators
CLAIM: Facilitators created simpler, more visual instructions and
debriefs for both student groups
EVIDENCE: Through observations, facilitators and rock climbing
instructors were willing to change their style to work with both unique
populations, once these skills were demonstrated.
CLAIM: Interagency Staff were able to link student learning on the
challenge course to school success than SWS staff.
EVIDENCE: IA staff observed slight student success on course in 2013,
as well as participated on the course themselves in summer 2013. Due
to the IA mini-campus design, educators stayed with students on all of
the challenge sessions.

Claims and Evidence: leadership
CLAIM: 4-H Pre/ Post test has design flaws and will
need to be reworked.
EVIDENCE: Besides the IA data, the entire set (500
participants) showed inconclusive changes from Pre
to Post test.
CLAIM: I relied to much on the new survey without
utilizing enough data collection from interviews and
school visits.
EVIDENCE: The new survey was mostly useless for
ELL students and did not produce expected results.

Citation
Camp Long/ WSU 4H data compiled from CSHS students (April 5-2013) and
Interagency High School (April 4, 11, 25-2013)
Conley, L: Caldarella, P; and Young, E. Evaluation of a ropes course
experience for at-risk secondary school students. Journal of Experiential
Education, 30 (1), 21-35
Gillis, H.L. and Speelman, E. (2008) Are Challenge (Ropes) Courses an
Effective Tool? Journal of Experiential Education, 31 (2), 111-135
Lindsay, J.F. and Newberry, E.H. (2000) The impact of social skills training
and challenge course training on locus of control of youth from
residential care. Journal of Experiential Education, 23 (1), 29-42
Tough, P. (2012). Paul tough: writer and speaker. Retrieved from
http://www.paultough.com/

Appendix A
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Question 2
Question 3
Question 7
Before Challenge
After Challenge
21 evaluations over 3 different visits (9
th
graders based on credits, but various ages)
Interagency High School
(mean score changes from
April 2013 visits)
Statistical significance: p < .05
Appendix B Preliminary Results
N
Pretest
Mean Score
Posttest
Mean Score
t
Sig.
(p)
Communication 245 3.66 3.76 2.950 .003
Decision-making 242 3.75 3.80 1.441 .151
Teamwork 249 3.93 3.99 1.995 .047
Self-efficacy 14 3.84 3.79 .331 .746
Pilot Data: September December 2013
Appendix C
SPSS data set
from Jan, April, and May 2014
Contact
Ken Turner
Challenge Course Manager
Seattle Parks and Recreation
Doctoral Candidate, UW
olinturner@gmail.com
206-617-0288