Wilderness Adventure Processing Models

A number of models have been developed to specifically account for the learning that takes place during wilderness adventure experiences. One of the first of these was formalised by James (1980), who suggested that adventure experiences within a wilderness context were in and of themselves sufficient causes of change.

This view is supported by ecopsychologists and ecotherapists who suggest that repairing the damaged relationship between psyche and the natural environment is essential for holistic well-being (McCallum, 2005; Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner, 1995;

Sevilla, 2006). To a large extent early Outward Bound programmes were based on this model, they aimed to utilise the power of wilderness contexts, and pair this with targeted activities and challenges believed to foster pro-social values, resilience, and other such character strengths (Neill, 2008). Insofar as these outdoor education programmes were honed to the development of character and maturity, rather than academic material or intellectual skills, they are better suited to a psychological model of change than an educational one (Kimball & Bacon, 1993). Within the Outward Bound model, concrete activities should be chosen that create opportunities for problem-solving and cooperation, match the needs and capabilities of the learners, are structured and presented incrementally, are challenging and yet manageable, offer immediate feedback and real consequences, and require learners to engage their physical, cognitive, emotional, and social resources for successful completion (Walsh

& Golins, 1976). As a result of their success, as well as a philosophy of expansion, the outward bound model was eagerly adapted by other programmes offering adventure programming, with up to 30% of WEPs being direct adaptations of the outward bound

model (Friese et al., 1998).

As more psychotherapists and educators entered instructor positions, they brought with them cognitive, reflective techniques and group therapy approaches used to highlight critical areas of development within the activities that were being undertaken. They argued that activities and the wilderness context on their own may not be as effective in ensuring transfer of learning or bringing change into awareness (Gass, 1993c). This model, which sought to add processing of the experience to the components already part of the Outward Bound model became known as the Outward Bound Plus (OBP) model. This approach was believed to increase the power of the experience to effect change, but it also required that instructors have in-depth knowledge of the background and capabilities of their clients, and be more prescriptive and technique orientated (Gass, 1993c). The most common method used to process experiences is the debrief. Debriefs generally move through four stages: (a) participants review and describe their experiences, instructors will generally ask participants what they did, how they felt, and how the group reacted to specific events; (b) attention is diverted to identifying patterns and making comparisons – instructors may ask participants to identify highlights and challenges, and discuss patterns; (c) the main lessons can then be related to daily life – instructors may ask participants if the themes that emerged remind them of anything at home or school, how reactions are similar or different, and what they learned that could be used back in their endemic contexts; and (d) propose solutions and examine values – instructors generally ask what clients have learned about themselves and what they would like to change (Hammel, 1993). Not every debrief will move through all of these stages, the instructor must evaluate the level of participant response, the personal impact of the

experience, levels of self-awareness, participants ability to verbalise thoughts and feelings, and the level of sharing for both the group and specific individuals. But with each debrief the opportunity exists to use each disclosure to build trust in the group.

Instructors must also carefully choose timing and location. Some contexts almost automatically elicit discussion and contemplation (like the fireplace), whereas others are not conducive at all (at the bottom of a set of rapids) (Hammel, 1993). Despite increasing reflection and transfer of learning, the OBP model has the disadvantage of being reflective rather than proactive (Gass, 1993c).

In order to address this limitation a model was proposed in which instructors

“frame” the outlook of clients before the activity utilising metaphors focusing on analogous structures between adventure experiences and client's learning needs. This allows the experience itself to take primacy in nurturing change, rather than cognitively and verbally burdened post-processing. By directing clients attention to aspects of the experience pertinent to their needs, instructors may foster actual change during the activity. To be successful metaphors must hold clients attention, have a successful outcome, be isomorphic, and be related with sufficient detail for clients to attach personal meaning to the experience (Bacon, 1983). Gass (1993d) proposed a seven step sequence for developing isomorphic experiences appropriate to specific client needs in a given situation: (a) state and rank the specific client goals of the activity based on the needs of individual clients and the group; (b) select an adventure experience with strong metaphoric associations to identified goals; (c) ensure that the experience has a successful resolution in contrast to client's real life experience; (d) adapt the activity's framework (introduction, rules, processes) to strengthen isomorphic correspondence; (e) check to ensure the metaphor is compelling enough to

engage the client's attention; (f) conduct the experience and make revisions to highlight isomorphic connections; and (g) use debriefing to reinforce positive behaviour changes, re-frame negative interpretations, and transfer functional change to client's lifestyles. Disadvantages of the metaphoric model are that including both framing, activity and debriefing in the programming increases the complexity of the instructors task, more assessment is needed to be prescriptive in tasks, and the analogies and isomorphism between the experience and client's lives are not always easily discerned by clients or by instructors. Indeed, in order for frames to be truly isomorphic, instructors must have accurately understood clients' life-worlds and make sure that frames take into account individual differences. Finally, framing potentially limits the breadth of outcomes by limiting the focus on specific issues within the activity, possibly bypassing alternative interpretations and aspects of the experience (Gass, 1993c).

Although framing the experience using isomorphic metaphors is appropriate between 80-90% of the time; when a student is resistant to direct frontal approaches therapeutic paradoxes can be used (Bacon, 1993). In this approach situations are structured to cause a positive double-bind. The fundamental quality of the therapeutic paradox is that it must draw participant's attention to aspects of the situation from a specific perspective that challenges participants to either abandon their worldview or give up on the literal experience. In such a situation a choice must be made, and whichever option is chosen, it is not possible to rebel against a perceived position of the instructor so both options lead to compliance and positive outcomes. Bacon (1993) warns that this is an advanced technique and should be used with caution, but when used in the following forms it becomes fairly accessible: (a) prediction of

failure – e.g. “hardly anyone manages this, so its OK if you don't do it”; (b) restraining comments – e.g. “We are gonna have to take it really easy here because its a very difficult section that we might not complete until nightfall”; and (c) utilisation – e.g. “I'm impressed with your ability to resist the desire of the group, what makes you able to stand your ground here, and how could you use these same resources when friends try and pressure you into doing stuff you don't want to back at home”.

Great care must be taken when using these techniques not to appear uncaring or sarcastic, and ensuring that all predictions of failure or restraining comments are honest and accurate (Bacon, 1993).