Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
1
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom
Preamble: Axiomatic Issues in Adventure Education
Adventure education, in its ‘modern’ form, is well over 50 years old. It seems
timely at the beginning of the twenty-first century to reflect upon trends and issues
influencing adventure education programming and to consider the underlying,
seemingly perennial nature of fundamental questions. Science talks about axioms,
the central hunches or beliefs upon which the whole box and dice rest. Adventure
education should also be in the habit of making apparent, and cogitating upon, its
axioms. What fundamental assumptions do the theories and practices of adventure
education base themselves? Mapping out the territory of philosophical assumptions
that are the architecture of outdoor education is a significant task, and few, if any,
could claim to have tackled the task comprehensively and head on. A few names
come to mind, as worthy of consideration – Jasper Hunt and Steve Bowles, for
example. Such thinkers, however, would probably be the first to argue that we need
deeper examination of the fundamental assumptions in order to consider possible
futures and ways forward for adventure education. I personally have particularly
appreciated the work of Jasper Hunt on ethical issues in the adventure education
setting and Steve Bowles’ questioning of the positivistic limitations of the
predominantly North American theoretical and philosophical views that receive
considerable global currency in adventure education circles.
Amongst the potentially axiomatic issues that could be considered for closer
philosophical examination in adventure education are the roles, challenge, risk, safety,
nature, psychological aspects, the leader, and facilitation in adventure education. The
current paper focuses on a facilitation question – specifically the debate that occurs
between those who promote a “let the mountains speak themselves” view versus
those who promote a “facilitated processing of experience is important, in addition (or
integrated with) the “mountains” experience”. Interestingly, this is not a new issue.
Bacon’s (1987) Three Stages in the Evolution of Outward Bound and Priest
and Gass’ (1997) Six Generations of Facilitation
Stephen Bacon (1987) identified three key stages in the evolution of Outward
Bound: 1) a first generation model which focused on experience alone and dominated
programming in the 1960’s and early 1970’s; 2) a second generation model which
emphasised discussion, group process and imported techniques, characteristic of the
1980’s; and 3) a third generation stressing experiential metaphors which we can
gained more prominence during the 1990’s.
2
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom
Since this time, Michael Gass (Priest & Gass, 1997) has done some interesting
work expanding the nature and sequencing of reflective processes and the use of
metaphoric framing of activities. In essence, Priest and Gass (1997) proposes shifting
the reflection process from after the experience to before the experience or during the
experience. Frontloading, the fourth stage involves conducting a preview discussion
before an experience to help orient and focus participants during the ensuing activity.
The fifth stages builds upon frontloading by introducing an isomorphic framing, that is,
a metaphorical structure for the activity which has a meaningful link to other aspects
of participants’ lives. The sixth stage is used where up front frontloading and
isomorphic framing may not work, and thus is may involve using paradoxical means,
such as telling participants that an activity will probably be too hard for them to
complete in order to fire their motivation.
3
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom
I ask trainee staff and undergraduate outdoor education students to read
Thomas James’ class “Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves?” paper before
conducting a 60 to 90 minute workshop and then complete a pre-workshop reflection
sheet. If trainees are not able to read the paper beforehand, then I provide a
summary of the paper at the start of the session. So, I find the session can be done
effectively in 60 minutes if trainees are prepared, and 90 minutes if they are not
prepared. It is preferable, however, that trainees read the paper beforehand because
it is so eloquent and engaging. Remember, download these materials from:
http://www.wilderdom.com/mountainsmaterial.html. The rest of this describes
assumes trainees have done their ‘homework’.
On a board I then draw a long line, the continuum, as follows (with pictures) and
ask each trainee to place a cross and their initials to represent their preferred
instructional style, given their ideal program and ideal client group. This is fascinating
to watch and discussion will usually ensue quite naturally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Mountains Facilitate Personal
Speak for Themselves & Group Process
I then ask the couple of folks at the extremes to share with the group their
reasons for their preference and sometimes I’ll also ask for a perspective from
4
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom
someone right in the middle. The ensuing discussions is always lively and reveals
strong arguments for both ends of the spectrum. I continue probing for viewpoints
until critical comments start emerging about the model itself – the switched on
facilitators will start to make comments like:
• “but I use a different style with different groups, so it was very hard for me to place
myself in only one place” or
• “groups go through different stages, and so I used different styles depending on
the stage of group development” or
• “different participants respond best to different styles and so I try to adapt to meet
each of their needs”.
In the initial stages of the workshop when these kinds of comments come up, I
respond by saying something like, “sure, but at the end of the day, what is your most
comfortable, preferred way of leading a group”. However, when the comments
surface again later in the workshop (may need some prompting), I move into the next
phase.
So, I then ask students to redesign Thomas James’ model in a way that is more
meaningful and useful. They might look blank. So, I suggest that perhaps the line
should be bent into another shape, a triangle or a circle or a spiral. Or perhaps a new
metaphor would be better – some groups have used a bus, a chef, and so on.
Groups then breakout and have about 20 to 30 minutes with large paper and
markers to develop a new model. Each group then gets a few minutes to present their
models. The resultant presentations never fail to impress. I emphasize the vital
importance of us not accepting the written literature without trying to reconceptualize
it for ourselves, in our own organizations and with our own groups.
6
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom
Neill, J. T. (2002). Are the mountains still speaking for themselves? A defining tension 20 years
on….
http://www.wilderdom.com/mountainsmaterial.html
References
Bacon, S. B. (1987). The Evolution of the Outward Bound Process. Greenwich, CT: Outward
Bound USA.
James, T. (1980/2000). Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves? [republished] Scisco
Conscientia, 3.
Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
7
© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom