Long, D., DeTrude, J. A. and Nichter, M. S
In this study an attempt was made to determine if adventure facilitators were making ethically correct decisions based upon their knowledge and skills obtained in training and workshops on adventure ethics and decision making. Adventure facilitators and apprentices (N=87) in one school district were surveyed on five areas of decision making: (1) empowerment; (2) informed consent; (3) appropriate use of risk; (4) dual relationships; and (5) physical needs of participants. Based upon the date, it can be concluded that facilitator responses accept the hypothesis that adventure facilitators, without the benefit of extensive adventure-based decision making, can make correct decisions based on personal knowledge and experience in the five areas of decision making. Recommendations include follow-ups with focus groups to determine appropriate training models, follow-up with facilitators on the use of the mute technique; and replicate this study with other school based adventure facilitators. (adventure facilitators); (decision making); (adventure ethics)
A Study of Facilitator Decisions on Ethical Adventure Issues
Experiential education/counseling in the school/therapeutic setting originated with the adaptation of the Outward Bound model of experiential education in 1971 into what became Project Adventure, a program carried out at
As with most disciplines, certain professional actions are more appropriate than others. When these actions pertain to moral decisions and conduct, they are usually identified as ethical issues. Ethical decision making involves determining which behaviors in such issues are “morally” right. Issues of ethical concern might arise when a conflict over what is the best course of action to follow occurs. (Priest & Gass, 1997)
An increasing number of teachers and counselors are being trained as adventure facilitators. The most common form of training consists of modeling the appropriate behavior to new facilitators followed by an apprenticeship period where they have the ability to practice facilitation skills while being observed by more experience personnel. This investigation sought to determine if adventure facilitators were making ethically correct decisions based upon their own personal knowledge and skill obtained in training and facilitating versus specialized workshops on adventure ethics and decision making. Five specific areas were investigated: empowerment, informed consent, appropriate use of risk, dual relationships, physical needs of participants.
The Experiential Education Model
The experiential education model promotes the development of student agency (a sense of how one becomes more of a change agent in one’s own life and how to use the knowledge as a source of power to generate action), belonging (constructing mutually beneficial relationships, positive self-identification, and positive feelings about program participation and community membership), and competence (acquiring skills, knowledge and the ability to use them in a variety of situations). It does so by introducing resources and behaviors that allow for active learning, drawing on student experience, authenticity, and connecting lessons to the future in a learning community that values caring, compassion, responsibility, accountability, spirituality, ethics, individuality and critical thinking (Carver, 1995). (Figure 1)
The experiential education model cuts across all stereotypical placements and levels and, due to the structure of the model, allows diversity to be a positive factor or strength within the experience.
Luckner and Nadler (1997) state that experiential learning does best is to instill a sense of ownership over what is learned. It adds to the interest and involvement of the participants, but most importantly it contributes significantly to the transfer of learning. The ultimate result is that individuals accept responsibility for their own learning and behavior, rather than assigning that responsibility to someone else.
This Adventure Wave Model used in conjunction with a challenge course allows students to set goals to achieve for themselves and their group. Then in the safe operating environment of the group process they practice the skills needed to meet and maintain the goals before integrating them in an environment outside of the course such as in school, at home or the workplace. Students are then briefed on a concrete task with which to perform (walk on a pole, climb a 40’ wall, swing on a rope to land on a small platform) along with a problem to solve (i.e. how best to satisfy the group and individual goals during this particular challenge). When the activity is completed, the most important aspect of the education begins in the form of a debriefing. The students look at how they performed in relationship to the goals that they had set for themselves and then through discussion extend the concepts into personal situations outside of the group setting (i.e. school, home, work setting). (Schoel, Prouty & Radcliffe, 1988) (Figure 2)
The debriefing is extremely crucial in the transference of knowledge gained in the activity to other activities and then into the outside world. The debriefing model (Adventure Model) flows through a series of stages: a) observation and reflection (what happened), b) formation of abstract concepts and generalizations (so what), c) testing concepts in new situations (now what). The focus of debriefing leads to the use of the information gained from the experience to real world applications where the learned and practiced knowledge might be used. (Adventure Based Counseling, 1991) (Figure 3)
Figure 3 Experiential Learning Style
Occurring simultaneously with the adventure wave and debriefing, the group facilitator is analyzing the group and making decisions relating to focus, intensity future objectives and activities. This process is casually referred to as “counseling on the run”. Through the identification of group needs, the facilitator has the task of providing experiences that are safe and appropriate for the group as they are working within the adventure process. One method of scanning the group to create definitions of both personal and interpersonal needs is the GRABBS Modality Check List (Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988).
GRABBS Modality Check List
Goals How does the activity relate to the group and individual goals that have been set?
Readiness This regards levels of instruction (skills) and safety capabilities. Is this group ready to do the activity? Will they endanger themselves and others? Do they have the ability to attempt and complete? What will you have to do to change the event to compensate for lack of readiness?
Affect What is the feeling of the group? What kinds of sensations are they having? What is the level of empathy or caring in the group?
Behavior How is the group acting? Are they resistive? Disruptive? Agreeable? Are they more self-involved or group involved? Are there any interactions that are affecting the group, both positive and negative? How cooperative are they?
Body What kind of physical shape are they in? How tired are they? Do they substance abuse? Are they on medication? How do they see their own bodies?
Stage Which developmental stage is the group at? (Forming, Storming, Norming, Transforming)
It is within the context of the GRABBS framework that the group facilitator is entrusted with the task of “reading” the group and making important decisions about the facilitation of the mind, body and soul of the group. Trotzer (1999) states that leaders have the professional obligation to function in the best interest of the group members, the setting in which they function, and the community to the maximum degree possible. Of course there will always be conflicts of interest, ambiguous situations and crises in which decisions will have to be made based on their own professional judgment and commitment to their clients. These decisions are never easy, require careful consideration before acting and are best made under the auspices of ethical guidelines. Ultimately, group leaders are always responsible for ethical practice in their leadership role. (Trotzer, 1999) When the leaders accept responsibility the expectation is that they will perform the task according to the standards or practices of the profession. The standard is not determined by the background of the person in charge, such as skill, credentials held, maturity or knowledge. There is not one standard for beginners and inexperienced people and another for persons of some year’s experience. The participant is owed a duty to be protected from unreasonable risk of harm, regardless of who is in charge (Dougherty, 1998).
The creation of ethical standards, codes and guidelines help to provide guiding principles for facilitators to follow when working through ethical issues and creating appropriate decisions. The creation of these standards of professional thought construct the groundwork for safety from unreasonable risk. Herlihy and Corey (1997) state that codes of ethics educate professionals and the general public about the professions’ responsibilities. They provide a mechanism for accountability, and through their enforcement, protect clients from unethical procedures. For practicing professionals, the codes also serve as a basis for self-monitoring and improving practice.
The Association for Experiential Education (AEE) in conjunction with the American Psychological Association and the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy created a set of ethical guidelines to be used as ethical standards when applying for accreditation under the auspices of AEE. Though these guidelines are not universally established as a means to censure facilitators from working with individuals they do define expectations that should be met to create a safe experiential program. Priest and Gass (1997) state that AEE has focused on seven specific areas in which guidelines have been defined:
1) Competence: referring to not working beyond your capability. Integrity: referring to honesty, fairness and respect with regard to client interactions and peer relations.
2) Responsibility: referring to caring for the client’s well being as well as the environments.
3) Respect: referring to the fundamental rights, dignity, and worth of clients and peers. Concern: as referring to client’s physiological and psychological needs and well being.
Recognition: as referring to social responsibility toward the community and society’s needs.
4) Objectivity: as referring to not establishing relationships with clients beyond the role of leader and client.
Though guidelines exist they do not necessarily substitute for the ethical decision making process; they merely shepherd you through the process of resolving conflicts or dilemma’s.
Herlihy and Corey (1997) state as a reminder that ethical codes should be considered living documents that may change over time and can only reflect the current state of knowledge. It
is important that facilitators/group leaders become well versed in the ethical guidelines of their field as well as provide themselves with ongoing consultation, supervision and knowledge of advancing practices and standards.
Ethical codes and guidelines also have restrictions and limits placed upon both their purpose and credibility. Herlihy and Corey (1997) in their critique of ethics codes find four distinct limitations in codes as they presently exist:
1) Codes attempt to serve many purposes simultaneously, they tend to involve into lengthy documents with inherent inconsistencies – both prescribing what is desired and proscribing what is prohibited, setting forth both mandatory or minimal expectations and aspirational or desired conduct and mixing principles and behaviors in both general and specific terms.
2) A proliferation in codes causes professionals to be bound to abide by the codes of more than one professional association that they are a member, the divisional standards as well as national and state ethical codes. Although codes may not vary in significant ways, it is a daunting task for professionals to become familiar with every applicable code to know if they can honor its provision.
3) Opinions vary widely concerning how much latitude should be given for interpretation of the codes by the professionals they serve. Corey (1995) emphasizes that ethics codes are guidelines and should not be viewed as prescriptions, that professional judgment and flexibility are crucial factors in applying standards. Herlihy and Corey (1997) emphasize the importance of consultation when uncertain as to how to apply the standards thus halting the danger of allowing
questionable decisions to be justified as “differences in interpretations”. Both however do agree that no code of ethics delineates the appropriate or best action in all cases that one could consider codes are no substitute for sound professional judgment.
4. Ethical standards are difficult to enforce; the majority of unethical behavior is difficult to detect. Examples of unethical behavior that can be detected would include: prolonged number of sessions, use of techniques inappropriate for the client, being unaware of counter-transference or failing to deal with it, and avoiding confrontation with the client while resorting to giving advice (Herlihy & Corey, 1997).
The manner in which a leader handles decision making within a group situation reflects not only the style from which they work but the method in which they were trained as well. Training programs consciously and unconsciously mold leaders according to certain theoretical and philosophical biases that are difficult to lay aside in the interests of groups or individuals (Trotzer, 1999). Coupled with the limitations presented by Herlihy and Corey (1997) and Corey (1995) one can see the importance of fostering ethical growth in facilitators and group leaders through the development of their own approach to problem solving. This development under the auspices of acceptable professional practice standards and ethical guidelines allows the facilitators to develop and face individual instances of conflict with openness and flexibility to be sure the best possible route is followed (Trotzer, 1999).
In developing ethical thinking with openness, flexibility and leadership in mind, the
Gass (1997) in their description of the
1) Intuition: Ethical responses in the intuition level come from the prereflective or “gut reactions” to the question. The ethical beliefs associated with these decisions are so well established the answer is obtained through “ordinary moral sense”.
2) Option Listing: When you are unable to resolve an ethical decision at the intuitive level, option listing and the evaluation of those options, their outcomes, and potential ramifications needs to occur. This serves as a foundation in the ethical decision making process in which ever of the three remaining steps is used.
3) Ethical Rules: Generally externally established codes of conduct to maintain a certain level of ethical behavior and their creation is considered a developmental benchmark in the quest for professionalism.
4) Ethical Principles: Considered to be the enduring beliefs about specific modes of conduct or ends of states of existence that, when acted upon, protect the interest and welfare of all. More general in nature than rules the five principles are considered to be autonomy defined as individuals having the freedom of action and choice as long as their behavior does not infringe on the rights of others; nonmalefience, defined as meaning above all else no harm will come to the people; beneficence, the focus to be on the contribution to the health and welfare of others; fidelity, defined faithfulness, keeping promises, being loyal to peoples rights; justice, defined as individuals being treated as equals and implies the concept of fairness.
5) Ethical Theories: The most broad and final stage helps you determine which factors are relevant to the situation and should take precedent. Two principles used in this process are balancing and univeralizability. With balancing, you compare options, trying to pick the one that brings about the least amount of avoidable harm to all parties involved. With universalizability, you seek to institute and generalize the same ethical actions across similar situations.
This model does not hold that one step is better than the next, only more appropriate for providing professional guidance when making an ethical decision. The more ethical decisions that one makes the higher the likelihood that the decisions will be made from the intuitive stage (Priest & Gass, 1997).
Experiential education and the use of challenge courses involve physical as well as mental and emotional risk. To appropriately gauge a group and its members, to plan an experience that meets individual needs, group needs and remains safe can be a daunting task. Decisions made by the facilitator have a tremendous impact on the outcome of the minute, the day and the life of an individual and group. Thus having facilitators well versed in ethical decision making skills can be crucial to the safety of all involved in an experiential program.
A questionnaire was distributed to staff members who are currently certified as adventure facilitators or adventure facilitator apprentices in a large school district in the southwest. The staff polled was also currently employed by this school district.
The questionnaire was distributed with an accompanying cover letter through intra-district mail. By completing the survey and returning it to the researcher, participants gave their informed
consent to use survey information in the analysis of the program. Copies of the questionnaire were distributed to 87 facilitators with 47 of them responding for a 54% rate of return.
The questionnaire was composed of 14 forced answer questions designed to gather demographic information as well as thoughts on the decisions made in each of the scenarios. Also included in each scenario is an open-ended opportunity for a response to be given. Items one through four deal with the demographic information gathered, gender, occupation, highest degree earned, and years of adventure facilitator experience. Scenarios one and two deal with issues of
empowerment; three and four issues of informed consent; five and nine appropriate use of risk; six and ten physical needs of participants; seven and eight dual relationships. Items one through four were answered with appropriate check boxes for gender, occupation, highest degree earned and years of experience. Scenario's one through ten were answered with agree, disagree check boxes and a response area designated as other.
The data were analyzed using this school district’s statistical analysis program entitled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) on a 486 computer.
The data presented here is an accumulation of responses from 47 respondents to the Adventure Ethics Survey. The SPSS analysis was performed. The first two tests on the data were to determine frequencies and percentages.
Male 13 28.3
Female 33 70.2
Teacher 30 63.8
Counselor 17 36.2
Psychologist 0 0
Full time adventure 0 0
Highest degree earned
Bachelors 24 51.1
Masters 21 44.7
Doctorate 0 0
Years adventure experience
0-3 years 19 40.4
4-7 years 14 29.8
8-11 years 11 23.4
12-15 years 3 6.4
16 plus years 0 0
Table 2 Frequency and Percentages of Participant Responses to Scenarios
Frequency with valid percentage %
Scenario Agree Disagree Other
One 2 (4.3) 40 (85.1) 5 (10.6)
Two 4 (8.5) 39 ( 83) 4 (8.5)
Three 39 (83) 3 (6.4) 5 (10.6)
Four 46 (97.9) 1 (2.1) 0 (0)
Five 2 (4.3) 45 (95.7) 0 (0)
Six 24 (51.1) 9 (19.1) 14 (29.8)
Seven 39 (83) 2 (4.3) 6 (12.8)
Eight 2 (4.3) 43 (91.5) 2 (4.3)
Nine 16 (34) 17 (36.2) 14 (29.8)
Ten 16 (34) 17 (36.2) 14 (29.8)
Open ended responses for scenario one:
1. Open ended responses indicated that further discussion with Josh needed to occur prior to making a decision concerning his exit from the element.
2. I might talk with Josh and work together to lift Josh off the platform but not push.
3. I would let Josh step off the platform and let other students go. Then I would let Josh have one last try.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario two include:
1. The facilitator set himself up with a power struggle with the group. They need to go to lunch and move on.
2. If group goals have been met, facilitator must respond. Another activity can be done before lunch as well as the debriefing with the facilitator.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario three include:
1.Open ended responses concluded that pre-work with the teacher was required in the future so as not to have this occur and that establishing a full value contract would enable the group to move past the issue.
2. Yes, pretty much the way to handle this one. Then start communicating better with the staff regarding the adventure course expectations, etc.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario four include:
1. Legal issue – try to convince the student of your obligation.
2. Losing the trust of the student would hurt, but not like the potential harm that abuse can.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario five include:
1. Response takes away choice. Encourage to continue, not force.
2. Encourage versus pressure. She wants down, I let her down.
3. Talk about “taking one more step more than you think you can” but let her down if she wants to.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario six include thoughts on set-up guidelines that would provide for more information concerning the need for water and what should be packed or available for the students to drink. Responses indicated that most responders would have forced the water issue but not used the termination of activities as a consequence.
1. Don’t allow sodas on the course except as part of lunch – all should be drinking water throughout.
2. I think the kids shouldn’t have had soda to begin with, and everyone shouldn’t have been forced to drink two glasses of water if they had all been drinking water.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario seven include:
1. I can’t imagine doing this but I would probably apologize to Susan and to model good debriefing expectations, apologize for what I noticed.
2. You should not be working with any child with whom you had previous conflicts.
3. Should have discussed this with the lead facilitator before beginning the group. The can be helpful and prevent any of the above from occurring.
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario eight include thoughts on the facilitators training and continued work with children.
1. Solutions included “stepping out” of the situation and allowing someone else to facilitate while you take a quieter role.
2. Open ended responses ranged from absolutely not working with a group that had someone you knew so well to allowing additional harnesses for all students that were nervous and could use additional support.
Open ended responses listed by responses for scenario nine include:
The open ended responses focused primarily on the language and attitude of the facilitator an example of thought put into
1. Tough one! Still, the group may be absolutely right here. In the long run it may help him, as long as it can later somehow lead to him realizing that he has good ideas that can only be shared if he “plays by the rules”.
2. You as the facilitator have to uphold the group’s decision here, but you can show by your body language and future input that you value
3. This happened to me once I was “
Open ended responses listed by respondents for scenario ten include thoughts on the facilitators’ control issues and solutions which included allowing the group to care for themselves as a natural part of the experience. Allowing Benjamin to miss lunch was not an option favored by any respondent. Many comments also dwelled on the thought that the facilitator should be prepared for such issues and be able to compensate without becoming angry that the student had not followed directions.
Scenario’s four, five and eight should be specifically noted for their high percentage of consistent answers. Scenario nine should also be noted for the diffusion of percentage points across all categories.
Following the initial tests for frequency and percentages, t tests of statistical variance were run using the .05 level of significance. The following items though significant by that standard when scrutinized further show that due to sampling size, a movement of more than one response either direction would have distinct implications in the analysis. This analysis gives a general impression of how certain scenarios were answered without giving the ability to predict further information from the data as presented. By comparing gender with each scenario we find that in scenario 3, females are slightly more likely to answer disagree than males (p=.016). (Table 3) We also see that in scenario 7, females are slightly more likely to answer disagree than males (p-.016). By comparing highest degree earned we find that in scenario 10, individuals with a masters degree are slightly more likely to answer disagree than individuals with a bachelors (p=.033) By grouping years of experience as an adventure facilitator into one group representing those individuals with 0-3 years and a second grouping with those with 4 or more years of experience we find that in scenario 9, those individuals with more experience are slightly more likely to choose disagree than those with less experience (p=.20). In scenario 10, the grouping of individuals with more experience are slightly more likely to choose disagree than those with less experience (p=.037).
T-Test Analysis for Significant Variance
3 Gender Male: 11 Male: 1.18 .016
Female:30 Female: 1.00
7 Gender Male: 11 Male: 1.18 .018
Female: 29 Female: 1.0
10 Highest degree Bachelors: 20 Bachelors: 1.65 .033
earned Masters: 10 Masters: 2.0
9 Years of adventure 0-3 years: 12 0-3 years: 1.58 .037
experience over over 4 years: 1.90
In summary, 54% of the 87 adventure facilitators from this southwest school district responded to a survey on adventure ethics. Analyzing the frequencies and percentages given for each scenario it is evident that in most cases the majority of respondents agree as to whether the facilitator in the scenario handled the situation correctly or incorrectly. Scenario 9 would be the only scenario incongruent with this statement, the responses given are diffused across all categories (agree, disagree, other). Using t-tests to study significant variance at the .05 level of significance allows us to see that in 5 instances certain pairings are significantly different, however, when looking at the number of individuals sampled a movement of more than one response in either direction would significantly effect the data analysis therefore the analysis gives a general impression but does not give the ability to extrapolate further information from the data as presented.
Based on the data presented, it can be concluded that the facilitator responses accept the hypothesis that adventure facilitators without the benefit of extensive adventure based decision making can make correct decisions based on personal knowledge and experience in the areas of empowerment, informed consent, appropriate use of risk, dual relationships and physical needs of participants.
As a result of this study, these recommendations can be made:
1. Follow-up meetings with focus groups to determine appropriate training models to enhance current facilitator training with specific information on ethical based decision making.
2. A follow-up meeting with facilitators on the use of the “mute” technique in group.
Adventure based counseling workshop manual. (1991).
Carver, R.L. (1995). School reform based on experiential education: What does it mean and why does it matter? (Report No. SP 036210).
Conference of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386449).
Corey, G. (1995). Theory and practice of group counseling. Fourth Edition. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Dougherty IV, N. J. (1998). Outdoor recreation safety.
Herlihy, B., & Corey G. (1997). Codes of ethics as catalysts for improving practice. The Hatherleigh Guide to Ethics in Therapy.
Kitchener, K. (1984). Ethics in counseling psychology: Distinctions and directions. Counseling Psychologist 12(3), 43-55.
Luckner, J.L., & Nadler R.S. (1997). Processing the experience: Strategies to enhance and generalize learning. Second Edition.
Priest, S. & Gass, M.A. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.
Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (1988). Islands of healing.
Trotzer, J.P. (1999). The counselor and the group: Integrating theory, training, and .practice. Third Edition,
Adventure Ethics Survey
Please provide the following information by checking the most applicable category:
Gender Occupation Highest Degree Earned
___Male ___Teacher ___Bachelors
___Female ___Counselor ___Masters
___Full Time Adventure Facilitator
Years Adventure Facilitator Experience (include current year)
Please read each scenario and respond by checking for agree, disagree or responding in the space for other.
1. It is at the point in the day where you are beginning to need every single second if you are going to allow all the students you are working with the opportunity to complete the zip line. You know that the bus will be arriving to pick up the students in less than an hour and you still have to debrief the day.
All of these thoughts are going through your head as you sit on the zip line platform with Josh, a student who has been frozen in place for about 45 minutes. The students on the ground have been patient and supportive until they realize that if Josh does not go they will not have the opportunity to participate. They are now beginning to yell and verbally abuse Josh into going. Josh suddenly turns to you and says, “push me off”, and without hesitating you push Josh off the platform.
2. You are facilitating a group of staff members on the Mohawk walk. They have been actively engaged for about an hour and a half. It is nearing time for the lunch break. The group decides to take a water break and in the ensuing discussion decide that though they have not completed the activity, they have met the goals they had set during the briefing. After the water break, they provide you with a detailed explanation as to how they accomplished their goals and inform you they will not be returning to this particular element.
You suspect that they are working toward an early break for lunch so you respond by telling them they will not be moving on to the next initiative until they have completed this one first.
3. A teacher has approached you about working with her third grade class. It seems like they have a difficult time working together and staying on task. Working together on the adventure course might be a way to bring about positive change.
As you are going over the full value contract and challenge of choice, you notice the group is not responding well to you. It finally becomes clear to you that the students have been told that the teacher will be grading them on their conduct and participation while working with you. The students see this as being in direct conflict with what you are trying to say about having a choice in the level of participation.
You pull the teacher aside and let her know that your adventure experience does not have a grade attached to it. Then you return and work the issue with the students.
4. You are facilitating a group of students on the low element course, and as you are debriefing one of the students lets it be known that he was beaten the night before for making his drunken father angry.
Later when the two of you are alone, you inform the student that you will have to call Children’s
Protective Services and report the incident. The student becomes extremely upset and states that if he knew that you would be reporting his dad that he would not have said anything. The student also states “I thought this stuff was confidential.” You realize that in your haste to start the group that you had forgotten to go over the limitations of confidentiality.
To appease the student and continue working with the group you agree not to report the incident because you had not informed him about the limits of confidentiality.
5. Jean is a student that you have been watching all day. She seems afraid to do most anything yet when she makes an honest effort she often succeeds.
As you begin belaying students on the climbing tower, you realize that if Jean can make it to the top of the tower, she will realize that she can achieve anything she sets her mind to. She agrees to have you belay her, and you notice as you are hooking her up that she seems to be very nervous.
Halfway up the tower, Jean states that she wants to come down. You keep her on a tight belay and let her know that you are there to support her and she is safe. Jean continues to refuse to go any further and requests to be let to the ground. You know that she is almost there and you have seen her give a little more all day in order to be successful. You know this success will be good for her. You respond, “you can come down when you reach the top.”
6. It is a beautiful day, the sun has warmed the temperature up to a beautiful 90 degrees, however, the humidity is also 90 percent.
You notice that all through the morning most of the students have not been drinking water. They have, however been drinking every variety of soda from Mountain Dew to Coke, Pepsi, and Big Red. They explain to you that their fluid intake for the day is as high as is appropriate for hot weather.
Before you begin the afternoon session, you decree that “in order to continue you must drink at least two glasses of water or you will spend the afternoon sitting in the shade.”
7. Susan is a young lady you had in class for both of her years in the fifth grade. You and she usually disagreed and when you called her home, your relationship with her parents was even worse.
Several years later you agree to assist a colleague with a high school group. As you approach the briefing circle, you notice Susan is there and is not happy to see that you are the co-facilitator for the day.
As the day continues, you begin to notice that in the debriefing of activities, you are beginning to push the group into recognizing the mistakes of others especially when the mistake was made by Susan. Although you are allowing the group to call their own touches or mistakes which require them to start over, when it is Susan, you call out in a loud voice identifying her as the cause of the group’s difficulties, allowing them to blame her for their group being required to begin again.
When you notice these things occurring, you consult with your co-facilitator and begin to take a minor role in facilitating and debriefing the initiatives.
8. You have known Jack’s parents for ten years or so; you go to the same church and live in the same subdivision. You have had the opportunity to watch Jack grow up into a healthy, good-looking young man.
Recently you found out that Jack’s class was going to the adventure course for a day. Knowing the teacher, you called and asked to facilitate.
The low elements go well and you continually give Jack positive feedback. However, as the group approaches the high elements and begins preparing to climb, you notice that Jack is getting really nervous.
To ease Jack’s fears you go to the equipment room and get him the same type of harness the facilitators are wearing, thinking that he will feel more comfortable being outfitted the same way you are.
9. You have been working all morning with a group of middle school students and you notice that
As you begin to listen to what
As you begin the briefing for the next initiative, you tell the group that they have to pick one of their members to be mute. By unanimous decision the group picks
10. Each and every time, there is always someone who does not follow directions; some days you wonder how he/she manage to make it through life. Today it is Benjamin. Though he was reminded each day for the three days preceding the day on the adventure course, he has forgotten his lunch and is beginning to beg from other students.
Deciding that Benjamin needs to learn his lesson, even though he may have expended a lot of energy in the morning session and the afternoon will be as grueling, you inform him and the others that sharing food is not permitted and that you are only allowed to eat the lunch that you packed.
Benjamin shows you that he has money and asks to be released to go to the restaurant across the street. You explain that everyone must stay on school property and going off by him self is not allowed.