Real World Learning: a critical analysis

Main Article Content

Jan Činčera


The paper analyses the so called “Hand model”, invented as a part of The Real World learning international project. The aim of the model was to provide guidance for outdoor environmental education programs. In the analysis, it is suggested that the model suffers from inconsistency between its efforts to establish quality criteria consistent with self-directed, emancipatory learning, and its instrumental ambition to promote behavioral change. In the same way, the model provides a new point of view on outdoor environmental education programs, namely on values and frames communicated by the programs.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Činčera, J. (2015). Real World Learning: a critical analysis. Envigogika, 10(3).
Reviewed Papers
Author Biography

Jan Činčera

Masaryk University Brno, Department of Environmental StudiesTechnical University of Liberec, Department of Education and PsychologyThe author focuses on theory, methodics and evaluation of environmental education and education for sustainable development. He cooperates with environmental education centres as a programme evaluator and consultant.


Adkins, C., & Simmons, B. (2002). Outdoor, Experiential, and Environmental Education: Converging or Diverging Approaches? ERIC Digest.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179-211.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, Morality, Or Habit?: Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment & Behavior, 35, 264–285. doi:10.1177/0013916502250134
Cox, R. (2012). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Sage Publications.
Crompton, T. (2010). Common cause. The case for working with our cultural values. Retrieved from
Disinger, J. F. (2005). Tensions in Environmental Education: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. In Hungerford, H.R., Bluhm, W.J., Volk, T., & Ramsey, J. M. Essential Readings in Environmental Education. Champaign: Stipes, 1-12.
Dreyfus, A., Wals, A. E. J., & van Weelie, D. (1999). Biodiversity as a Postmodern Theme for Environmental Education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 155–176.
Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2010). ESD Pedagogy: A Guide for the Perplexed. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(1), 43–64. doi:10.1080/00958961003674665
Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Fulcrum Publishing.
Heimlich, J., & Ardoin, N. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 215–237. doi:10.1080/13504620802148881
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178. doi:10.1080/1350462970030205
Kellert, S. R. (1998). A National Study of Outdoor Wilderness Experience. Retrieved from
Kovalik, S., & Olsen, K. (1994). ITI: The model. Integrated thematic instruction. Books for Educators, Covington Square, 17051 SE 272nd Street, Suite 18, Kent, WA 98042.
McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT System to Bring Learning Styles to Schools. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 31-37.
Nicol, R. (2003). Outdoor education: Research topic or universal value? Part three. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 3(777566411), 11–27. doi:10.1080/14729670385200211
Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15.
Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Human Kinetics.
The Common Cause Foundation (2015). Common cause. The case for working with values and frames. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2013). Real World Learning Network. Interim report. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015a). About RWL Network. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015b). Our members. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015c). Real world learning model. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015d). Understanding. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015e). Transferability. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015f). Experience. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015g). Empowerment. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015h). Values. Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015i). Are self-transcendence values promoted? Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015j). Frames Retrieved from
The Real World Learning (2015k). Is there a frame providing a connecting story? Retrieved from
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. National foundation for educational research and King’s college London. Retrieved from
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Thomas, G. (2005). Traditional adventure activities in outdoor environmental education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 9(1), 31-39.
Wals, A. E. J. (2010). Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and transformative social learning: Stepping stones for developing sustainability competence. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 380–390. doi:10.1108/14676371011077595