Loynes (1998) has suggested that outdoor education is increasingly an entertainment park consumption experience and Greenaway (1998) has commented on the “bewildering array of explanations and theories about the educational value of mountaineering and other adventures” suggesting that “some of these explanations are adopted simply to add ‘respectability’ to outdoor adventure”.
Later, Greenaway (1998) critiques the practice of what is often called outdoor education “If we simply rely on providing ‘new experiences’ and following ‘learning cycles’ or ‘processing sequences,’ we may be doing very little to enhance the quality and effectiveness of courses that are intended to provide ‘development’”.
In a controversial paper critiquing the algorithmic paradigm Loynes (2002) has also called for an increase in “creativity, spontaneity and vitality". These dialogues indicate a need for those working in outdoor education to examine assumptions to ensure that their work is educational.
Whilst acknowledging the value of recreational experiences (both indoors and outdoors), some outdoor education commentators are concerned with the provision of outdoor education which may be essentially recreational in nature but ‘sold’ as educational. This may be intentional for numerous reasons, for example, outdoor education may attract more participants and therefore perhaps more funding. It may be unintentional if a lack of knowledge, for example, means providers believe they are offering educational experiences when, in fact, they may actually be recreational.