Contesto e partecipanti

There has been a fair amount of debate within adventure programming about whether wilderness and adventure experiences can result in learning in and of themselves, or whether reflection and facilitation are needed for learning and transfer to take place (James, 1980; Neill, 2002). Nadler and Luckner (1992) suggest that processing of experience is the cornerstone of every adventure-based experience, and when absent such experience is doomed to remain in the realm of recreation. The enjoyment and exotic nuance involved in adventure programme activities may lead to greater participation, but without in-depth processing or guided reflection might not

contribute to significant change (Pace, 2003). Lord (2007) states that "what makes adventure learning so powerful is that the experiences are visceral and involve some degree of physicality … but they're only as good as the facilitation that is conducted during or immediately after the program” (p. 178). Wichmann (1993) points out that the ability to process and solve problems, as developed in many group reflective and processing activities, is a stronger predictor of post-programme behaviour than instructor experience and expectations. Processing is particularly important because when participants experience disequilibrium during an adventure experience and apply some new behaviour to manage that conflict, unless they are aware of the psychological challenge they faced and what they actually did to overcome it, learning will not take place and the new behaviour will not be transferred to other situations (Nadler, 1993). The most common form of processing is the group debrief following a specific activity, or at the end of the day (Smith, 1993). Debriefing normally follows three steps: (a) analysis – focus on what happened, the story, without making judgements of attributions; (b) identification/generalisation – meaning is assigned to the actions taken, defining positive and negative behavioural impact on the group; and (c) application – participants discuss how they can apply what they've learned both to the next activity, and also to their real-world situations as well (Lord, 2007). Debriefs can only be used once the group has established trust and when they are capable of verbalising their feeling and thoughts. Prior to this other forms of processing can be used such as setting time aside for relaxation and introspection; activities such as solo, journalling and guided imagery to facilitate introspection; forming dyads or triads that can talk about their experiences while learning to trust and listen; and structured group activities such as group-building

tasks, feeling exchanges, or other non-verbal group exchanges (Smith, 1993). One of the most conducive contexts for processing to take place is in front of a camp fire at the end of the day's activities. A camp fire creates a relaxed atmosphere where youths are more likely to feel safe to share their feelings, even with sensitive topics such as sexual abuse (Kjol & Weber, 1993). Rather than only debriefing after the activity, participants awareness can be guided to salient moments and processes before the activity through the use of metaphor, isomorphic framing, or front-loading (Alvarez &

Stauffer, 2001; Kimball & Bacon, 1993). For example, Russell (2000) describes how participants benefited from discussing group processes and goals prior to going on a solo, and then being provided with therapeutic curricula that help them maximise reflection during their time alone. The archetypes and metaphors used in such processing must be believed by the instructors on a personal and professional level in order to be meaningful for the group. Schoel and Maizell (2002) warn that “often it is much easier to do than to think and talk about what we do … kids resist talk; adults, while they tend to talk a lot, resist “real” talk” (p. 233-235). When facilitating processing and reflection instructors must tap into their knowledge of what the groups norms, background, goals, and processes are in order to direct and utilise cognitive work regarding previous discussions, “real-life” issues, and how these present or play out in the process of adventure. Leaders must be careful not to react to quickly to silence, it may be resistance, mental exhaustion or inactivity, or creative thought and reflection. The leader should provide the structure and initiative for the debrief, but place the onus on the group for discussions and solutions. When initiating the debrief, Schoel and Maizell (2002) suggest six important questions that should guide the instructor: (a) which “drawing out” technique would be best to use? (b) which issues

need attention; (c) which participants need attention; (d) how far should the metaphor be extended and into which areas; (e) what kind of deepening is possible; and (f) how directive does this group need their leader to be? In most cases leaders work in teams and discuss these questions before calling a debrief, try and work it so that the group says what they want to be said before they do; approach the discussion from a

“participant role” and only sometimes speak from the “outdoor leader” role. At times the leaders may need to redirect conversation, or cut-off inappropriate or irrelevant discussion. Generally, debriefs should not exceed an hour and a half, and should be balanced by at least two parts experience to one part processing (Lord, 2007). It is important that outdoor leaders respect and demonstrate empathic listening to the experience of every participant that encounters a powerful emotional experience associated with an adventure activity. At the same time facilitators should not engage in psychological levels deeper than they have training to work with, and that are not part of the group's agreed upon purpose. Ringer and Gillis (1995) propose levels of psychological depth that can be engaged based on the language used in group interactions: (a) at the surface level participants generally talk only about other people, and tend to enact the shallowest and most rigid aspects of socially defined roles; (b) participants at the personally experienced level describe personal experiences of themselves in a particular social role, professional classification, or position in society; (c) at the current task level, the focus of the group is on events in the group of which they are part of at that moment, with content focused on activities and events; (d) the encounter level is when interactions between group members become the topic of discussion, and members begin to explore their perception of themselves that arises from engagement in the adventure experience; (e) at the

contextual level, group members think about and discuss their relationships with people who are not necessarily part of the group but are significant to them in their regular daily lives, and how their adventure experiences may impact on or be transferred to their everyday lives and relationships; (f) the identity formation level is where group members explore and possibly reshape their sense of self; (g) the cultural/historical level involves discussing and examining how one experiences themselves as a member of or is shaped by their culture of origin, their cultural heroes, cultural history, gender, sexual orientation, race or nationality; and (h) the final level is the existential level, which refers to discussions in which participants grapple with existential issues of life and death, issues of meaning and being, and spirituality. This level requires leaders to be very solid and have a well developed ego strength in order to contain the group's anxiety and distress about ultimate meaning and purpose. Ringer and Gillis (1995) suggest that recreational groups spend most of their time in the surface level and current task levels. In groups contracted to goals of education or development, facilitators will often work extensively at the encounter and contextual levels, and while discussions may sometimes flow between other levels, they will try and maintain a psychological depth between these two levels.

When the goal is psychotherapy, leaders will progressively guide discussions to the identity formation level and will deliberately probe and engage in sustained work at this and deeper levels. As a general rule, when a group member moves the discussion to a level of psychological depth much deeper than the agreed upon group goals, the person's statement must be fully acknowledged and given the appropriate empathic concern it deserves, then the conversation should be re-framed in the encounter level until a point when the group can move back to the contracted level (Ringer & Gillis,

1995).