Just like players learn about basketball through playing experience, we believe that they learn best about the value of self-sacrifice, leadership and team play through experience.
With that in mind we will often begin our discussions about leadership and teamwork topics by participating in an experience that generates insight and introspection. If the experience can stimulate the player’s thought processes at the start, and create a mental representation of a real team, we can more easily engage them in the work it takes to become a team.
Part of the process is recognizing that we are not a team just because someone calls us a team. If the experiences we create generate real team effort we have a baseline team experience we can reflect back upon as we do the work we need to do to become a real team.
Experiential Learning Theory
Experiential Learning Theory is the theoretical construct behind the strategy. The theory evolved from the work of Kurt Hahn, a German educator who fled Germany during World War II. Hahn was commissioned by the British to develop training that would prepare men for battle by simulating the mental challenges they would face. These simulations were difficult, often appearing impossible. In many cases the activities emphasized the concept of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts; success relied on the participant’s ability to cooperate, support each other and function as a team. They challenged the men to work through their perceived limitations and towards their greater potential. Following the war the model was adopted in the United States. The Outward Bound wilderness schools were formed and utilized the ropes course activities and the wilderness to challenge program participants.
In 1971 a group of former Outward Bound instructors formed Project Adventure and began working in mainstream schools in Massachusetts. From there the use of experiential activities in education, business and therapeutic communities evolved.
Both David Kolb and John Dewey contributed to the theoretical documentation. Dewey’s Experiential Learning Theory says, “everything occurs within a social environment. Knowledge is socially constructed and based on experiences. This knowledge should be organized in real-life experiences that provide a context for the information.”
In 1984 Kolb’s model presented four stages of his experiential learning cycle –
· a concrete experience.
· reflecting on the experience.
· learning from the experience.
· planning, or trying out what was learned.
Learning occurs as are result of working through the stages.
Experiential learning is predicated on the belief that change occurs when people are placed outside of positions of comfort and challenged by the adaptations necessary to reach equilibrium (balance and comfort).
In experiential learning the learner is a participant – not a spectator.
With experiential learning the activity is real and meaningful in terms of natural consequences to the learner.
Reflection is a critical element of the learning process.
SEQUENCING ACTIVITIES
PLANNING
Work with your partners – co-facilitators, coaches, team captains etc. – to learn about the group, establish program goals and generate a group hypothesis (based on information gathered)
List strategies for meeting the goals and choose activities that will help you meet the goals.
Secure the materials, equipment, props etc. needed to run your agenda. Always have additional materials, equipment and props available so you can adjust your agenda as needed.
Gather other logistical supplies – water jugs or bottles, first aid kit, emergency plan with contact numbers etc.
FACILITATING
Run your first activity and observe / assess the group. Do your observations confirm your hypothesis about the group? If so, move on with your agenda, if not, you might have to make adjustments to fit what you observe.
Observations could include –
Do participants play within designated boundaries?
Are they interactive?
Is there a participant who is isolating, or withdrawn?
Is there anyone who is not following the activity’s safety rules?
Do group members seem to get along?
Are there cliques within the group?
Any saboteurs?
Full Value Contract
Introduce the Full Value Contract as agreement between all participants to -
Be safe – follow all safety rules – keep everyone both physically and emotionally safe.
Be honest – speak up if we see unsafe behaviors - to assure safety is maintained.
Do your best – if you find yourself challenged and / or outside your comfort zone consider accepting the challenge and giving it your best effort.
This is the basic version of the Full Value Contract. Other versions add some complexity.
The facilitator’s ultimate responsibility is to monitor the safety of the participants and model “full contract behavior”. The facilitator, who also agreed to the full value contract, intervenes whenever necessary, to assure a safe environment.
The facilitator’s observations provide cues and information about the group’s commitment to the contract. Facilitate discussion about the group’s performance and strategies for improvement. Unsafe behaviors must be addressed and resolved before moving on in the activity sequence.
Challenge By Choice
Introduce Challenge by Choice as a philosophical principle that guides the group’s work. Challenge by Choice supports the decisions each participant makes about accepting the challenges presented by the activities. Research shows that personal growth occurs when people are free to choose to accept a challenge, rather than be pressured or coerced to do so. Participants agree to accept the choices people make, without judgement.
The facilitator discusses the philosophy with the group. Point out that, the real work happens when we consider the challenge and acknowledge our discomfort or hesitancy to attempt the activity. Once acknowledged we consider what is in our way. The participant then chooses to try and get past the obstacle now, or to work on it at another time and place.
Growth occurs when we make our best effort and change the status quo – even a little bit. For example, consider the challenge of the Burma Bridge high element – an activity that involves climbing a tree to a height of 40 feet (safely anchored to a belay rope, managed by a trained facilitator) and traversing across a rope and cable bridge to another tree then coming down on the belay. Many people have a fear of heights. This element challenges us to work through our fears, knowing that it’s not that we cannot climb the tree and traverse the element, it’s that we do not want to do it. Success is different for each of us attempting this element. Some will be able to complete the entire element. Some will not. Success is defined by the attempt, not the outcome. For someone terrified at the prospect of climbing the tree success can be climbing the tree to a certain point. If we are stuck at ground level and afraid to get on the ladder, even one or two steps on the ladder is significant – you changed the status quo. If you are climbing the tree and suddenly you are frozen, unable to move – success is taking even one more step, or maybe trying to take one more step. It is about changing our perceived limits and realizing that those limits are perceived not necessarily real.
The G.R.A.B.B.S.S. Checklist
The G.R.A.B.B.S.S. checklist is a tool which the facilitator uses to choose an appropriate activity based on observations made and knowledge of the group.
G. – Goal – consider how the activity relates to the goal.
R. – Readiness – is the group prepared to do this activity safely?
A. – Affect – is there a level of empathy and caring within the group?
B. – Behavior – Is the group engaged, disinterested, cooperative,
resistant, disruptive etc.?
B. – Body – Are there medical issues within the group, are they low
energy, physically fit, on medication, substance abuse issues etc.
S. - Stage of Development – what level of group functioning is the
group at (for example, storming, forming….)?
S. – Setting – how does the physical environment impact the activities -
does it limit the choice of activity – indoors, outdoors, other restrictions?
Assessing the group based on each of the above criteria assists the facilitator in selecting the most appropriate activity at that point of time in the sequence.
THE ACTIVITY SEQUENCE
A challenge course activity sequence starts with a hypothesis based on your knowledge of the group and the group’s goals. Icebreaker activities set a tone of fun for the participant, relieving anxiety. The facilitator observes to confirm or adjust the hypothesis. Subsequent activities are chosen using an assessment tool (the G.R.A.B.B.S.S. checklist) to determine the next appropriate activity. Proper sequencing is a pre-requisite to advanced challenges / peak experiences.
Ice Breakers
Often used at the beginning of a sequence, ice breakers relieve tension and anxiety, establish a non-threatening, fun environment, allow participants to get to know each other, and begin to establish physical and emotional safety. Ice breakers also serve as an early opportunity for the facilitator to observe and confirm or adjust the hypothesis.
Trust Activities
See the chapter on Trust, under Process – Leadership for a more detailed explanation of the importance of trust.
We focus on trust only after a sequence of "warm ups", "ice breakers", and a variety of games used to test our hypothesis about the type of group process at work. This is where the team’s work begins. Readiness is essential at this point in the agenda. Facilitators will only move on to more challenging tasks if trust is established and displayed. If their observations and insight do not verify full value behavior and a commitment to each other’s safety the facilitator must work to establish it before moving on to more challenging activities.
Project Adventure’s Islands of Healing (Schoel, Prouty, Radcliffe) lists the characteristics of Trust Activities:
Involve both physical and verbal group interaction
Fun but some fear as well
Involves support and cooperation of all group members to provide a safe experience
Risk taking takes place at many levels in trust activities.
The development of trust evolves gradually.
Trust activities are chosen with the intent of building trust; basic trust activities are initially chosen and can be performed repeatedly to reinforce the group’s safety. Despite the intriguing nature of certain trust activities, the facilitator chooses and modifies activities to provide the level of challenge and risk need to move the group forward and meet their goals – nothing more.
A Trust Fall activity provides an example. Unfortunately, this activity is now performed by many, well meaning, undertrained people, resulting in accidents and injuries. Done properly and when “readiness” is properly assessed, it can be a powerful activity.
A Trust Fall asks participants to consider falling from a height of about four feet into the arms of the group. To be deemed “ready’ for this activity the facilitator would observe consistent commitment to full value behavior and the performance of spotting activities in a number of other activities. The group’s performance would convince the facilitator that the group is committed to people’s safety and competent in the spotting skill. Choosing the Trust Fall activity should only be done if, after a careful G.R.A.B.B.S.S. checklist assessment, the facilitator feels that the Trust Fall is the only activity that provides the intensity needed to move the group towards its goals.
Initiative Problems
Project Adventure’s Islands of Healing (Schoel, Prouty, Radcliffe) lists the characteristics of Initiatives:
Initiatives provide opportunities for the group to enhance their ability and skill by working through a graduated series of problem-solving activities. Initiatives are a primary avenue towards a sense of group empowerment
Requires a group problem solving process.
Can be used to address topics that include teamwork, communication, cooperation, frustration, decision making and other interpersonal issues.
There is usually more than one way to solve the problem.
The group solves the problem with little or no help - except for safety considerations.
The group develops confidence in problem solving abilities through both success and failure.
Success relies on group participation and input.
Learning is reinforced by reflection.
Low Elements Are Initiatives
Low elements are “on the ground” initiative problems constructed using cable wire, rope, telephone poles, tires and wooden structures. Many low elements require “spotting”, a skill that asks the group members to stay alert, be in position to respond and physically support people as they attempt to perform low element tasks. The support is most often assuring that the participating group member’s upper back and neck area is protected by dampening their fall, should they fall.
Spotting must be taught, assessed and practiced in a graduated series of activities leading to competence.
Some examples of low element activities include:
Whale Watch / Teeter Totter
Spider’s Web
Electric Fence / Nuclear Fence / Over Under In Between
Porthole
Mohawk Walk / Wild Woosey / Tension Traverse
Swing Rope Activities – Disc Jockeys / Do I Go? / Proutys Landing / Nitro Crossing
T.P. Shuffle
Aussie Shuffle
All Aboard
The Wall
Team Skis
Human Ladder
Intensity Decisions – tweaking activity rules, consequences and rewards to make them more or less challenging in order to meet goals. For example, if meeting your goals involves building on success make the penalty for missteps simple, such as starting over rather than failing and ending the activity. If meeting your goals involves getting the group out of their comfort zone make the penalty more difficult, like having the entire group start from the beginning, rather than picking it up where they left off.
Rescues – intervening (usually adults working with adolescents) by providing answers when the group is struggling, depriving the group of the opportunity to learn on their own merit. Responding to the group’s struggles by relieving them of the tension created by the state of disequilibrium (out of their comfort zone). Rescues convey a message to the group, indicating lack of trust in their ability to meet the challenge. Rescues respond to our own discomfort when watching the group struggle – they are not helpful.
Your job as a leader is to develop people. You don’t need to have all the answers, or fix everything. Allow them to struggle and learn.
Reflection / Debriefs:
Reflecting on the group’s processes, interactions, struggles and successes is essential to group and individual growth. It helps connect the experience with the real-life application.
In Therapeutic Adventure in Residential Treatment (Brown, Peterman, Errico) we outlined our approach to debriefs:
“Simply put, debriefing is a process of asking questions to find out what knowledge has been gained. In adventure programming, debriefing is the method used to talk with participants about the activities they participated in. The debrief helps participants to make sense of the experiential event and acquire some learning as a result of participating. Debriefing an activity or activity sequence is similar to the practice of underscoring a word or phrase. Yet, of all the components of adventure programming, debriefing is most often cited as the one where facilitators seek the most direction.
As much as we prefer to view the debriefing process as an "art", we see no reason to mystify the process. True, persons having extensive experience working with group process will reach a debriefing comfort zone rather easily. Yet, debriefing technique is linked to individual styles, making it unique to the individual doing the debriefing. The result, thankfully, is that there is no one way to properly conduct a debrief. As an art form, we recommend not looking for a debrief "mold" that would restrict the creativity each individual brings to the practice of debriefing. By incorporating some simple core elements into the process, facilitators can almost let debriefs run themselves.
By design, adventure course activities have the ability to speak for themselves. Individual insight unfolds at the same rate as time engaged in an activity. Observe participants during, or at the completion of an activity. You begin to recognize the "ah-ha" expression on the face of the participants before ever asking them what just happened. The point here is that even without any sound group skill, a facilitator can lead a meaningful debrief on the strength of the activity alone.
However, we prefer to be active in the debriefing process. We begin by taking inventory of the group and individual goals of the participants. Goals direct the debrief in the same manner they guided our selection of activities for the experience. They provide the lens through which we view the group's participation in each activity and guide the use of metaphor through which we frame the experience and debrief.
Next, we consider timing. Our maxim, the debrief should be brief. Again, the activities tend to speak for themselves. The facilitator underscores the event and links it to the individual and group goals to foster ownership. Timing also applies to when you debrief. Debriefing is as effective when used while participants are actively involved in an activity as it is at the conclusion of the activity. The practice of debriefing "on the run", suggested by Schoel et. al. (1988) may be more effective because it highlights aspects of participant performance and interaction that might otherwise be diminished if the facilitator waited for the activity to end. Debriefing on the run actually allows the facilitator to naturally squeeze more information in and out of the participants than trying to cover the same amount at the activity's conclusion. Concentrating the bulk of debriefing during an activity and limiting debriefing content at the end of an activity maintains the flow of a sequence. Another option is to slant the presentation of an activity, or "front-load" it, to impact on what the participants take from the activity. This practice influences the debrief, but is not itself debriefing.
Schoel, Prouty, and Radcliffe credit Teny Borton in Islands of Healing (1988) with approaching the debrief by examining the "What", "So What", and "Now What" of the event. Essentially, these three perspectives encourage group members to review what they just experienced or accomplished, attach a purpose to the experience, and project what they can take from the experience and apply to other areas of their lives. Encourage the group to stay in the "here and now". Redirect focus away from what could have been, or "if only . . ." explanations. Begin by working with group members to speak about what just happened. This should sound as if each member were describing the activity to a friend. Guide the group dialogue to the next level of: so what was so important about what happened, what was the point, how does the experience relate to the goals, what was revealed to us what did it take to complete the task., so on. Finally, focus on how participants plan to use this information, now what are they ready for, does the learning fit into other facets of their lives.
In general, facilitators will find participants encounter some degree of difficulty speaking up in front of others, particularly their peers. Pockets of silence should come as no surprise, after all, we chose the experiential approach for the very reason that people often find it difficult to engage verbally. Despite a variety of reasons that participants might hesitate to contribute to the debrief, we contend it is always better for participants speak for themselves. In fact, we recommend that participants contribute to 90% of the discourse as compared to the facilitator's 10%.
The focus of debriefs can be as simple as “did we follow the Full Value Contract?”
They can be as complex as emphasizing life applications. For this reason, we suggest using Fritz Redl's Life Space Interview (LSI) (Redl, 1966) as a model to guide debriefs. The LSI offers guidelines for keeping things simple or exploiting the event. Its simple, sequenced approach allows for it to seamlessly interface with adventure programming. “
Simple Format: What? So What? Now What? – as noted above
Structured Format:
Fill the Bag – place an object in the backpack and make a statement re: observed full value behavior.
After debriefing other initiatives and repeated feedback – “cooperation, communication….. if we can perform like this here, what makes it so difficult to perform like this at work?
Memory Game - one describes in detail what happened, others say “hold it” when something is omitted, then picks up the story
Values Bag
Two Strokes & A Wish - state 2 positives about yourself and a related wish
Key Words - all brainstorm a list of words that describe the activity
Gift Giving - bandanna or some appropriate gift - select your favorite, then give it to someone in the group
Connectedness - tie a figure 8 in the rope (or whatever) used in an activity where all participated; give all a carabiner - as they connect it to the knot they state how they feel connected to the others
Web of Appreciation - ball of string toss w / comment re: what you appreciate about the person - symbolizes connections, trust support; cut string at end
Have You Ever....
You can reach us at
Or call us at