by Jude Hirsch, Ed. D.
Many years ago, decades actually, I remember carrying huge coils of rope through the woods to build temporary ropes courses at a camp where all of the students who took outdoor education classes at Acadia University in Nova Scotia came for many days to participate in a program that ended the academic year in style. We began the monumental task of constructing the course days before students arrived, and stayed days after they departed to disassemble it for storage. In the fall, all of the gear, ropes, pulleys, come-a-longs, and various hardware, was loaded in a trailer and transported to a small wood lot adjacent to campus for teaching hebertism1, a forerunner to the permanent challenge course more common at camps, schools, conference centers, and institutions today. Construction techniques have changed substantially. Program techniques have changed as well.
At that time, I taught students about the benefits associated with "hebertism" and the need to sequence activities to maximize benefits. Even so, it took the majority of a class period to construct three or four low course elements, try them, disassemble them, and return the gear to the trailer to be taken back to the outdoor center for storage. Little time was left for addressing matters of sequence, and even less time was available for examining the art and science of facilitating these experiences. I began to experiment with ways to teach about designing ropes courses, and programming ropes course experiences to maximize group and individual outcomes. This article is a first attempt to share an evolving model for helping leaders think about the complexities of sequencing challenge course activities to achieve program goals.
My first MacIntosh computer provided me with the means to create a set of graphic representations of initiative tasks, and low and high ropes course elements. Each was laminated on a 5X7 card that students were asked to use to create designs for particular client outcomes and settings. The benefits sought were primarily physical (strength and balance etc.), psychological (self-concept and self-confidence etc.), and social (trust and responsibility). The setting, school, camp or hospital, together with participant characteristics, dictated what emphasis was placed on particular benefits. At that time, in the early eighties, I was particularly interested in my students designing a course that sequenced physical competencies necessary to proceed from one activity or element to another. I thought that the other issues associated with sequence, such as emotional and social safety, would follow suit.
Therefore, a low tension traverse sequence might include several elements that progressed from taut foot and hand lines, through varying degrees of slackness on the hand line, to hand lines secured at one end of the element, to a hand line secured off the element or horizontally, to a vine walk, to a tired two line, etc. Sometimes these sequences were structured to resemble a bicycle wheel or parallel tracks, with crossover options like swings or stepping stumps, strategically placed throughout. Individuals or groups made "route" decisions at each junction -- to go this way or that way, depending on individual or group competency and goals. Initiative tasks and high elements were subjected to the same sequencing scrutiny.
I became associated with Project Adventure in 1989, when I was preparing to build a challenge course at Acadia University. Project Adventure, Canada was looking for an Eastern Canadian site from which to offer trainer workshops. Thus, I began a training path to become an Associate Trainer with PA that introduced me to people and resources that challenged my thinking and my pedagogy. My training buddy, Jim Schoel, taught me to use techniques like the adventure wave, challenge by choice, goal setting and from a fully developed experience. Such is the case when a group wants a half day program that includes the high ropes course, or when a group is just not ready to be responsible for themselves doing Level 3 & 4 activities. It is at these times that this model helps me to make decisions such as; how directive I will be as a facilitator, how to justify a major change in program GRABBSi. I began to integrate these techniques into my thinking and teaching about sequencing in adventure programs. In 1992, I worked with a student, Scott Hennigar, to develop a model that we called the Adventure Program Planning System (APPS). This model has been continuously refined since then for use as a planning tool to help adventure educators incorporate these concepts into a carefully constructed sequence of activities (Figure 1).
At some point I began to classify adventure activities into four categories that I call Levels 1, 2, 3 & 4. (Figure 2). This seemed to help students understand that challenge course design and program design are interrelated. It emphasizes that program design should remain flexible within a system that is responsive to participant and organizational needs, and respectful of safety and construction issues. I began to think about each level as a continuum. Therefore, a game, initiative task or challenge course element at any level could be made more or less complex, depending on individual, group or sponsor goals, and on going assessment. For example, I would normally place Trolleys at the upper end of the Level 1 category. I do not use it in the ignition, ice-breaker stage of a program, however it is on the ground and I often use it as a FUNN, group building activity that is new and exciting, and provides some opportunity to set group norms. Depending on the group, I make it more complex as a Trolley Obstacle Course or a Trolley MineField. These Trolley activities, then, consciously become Level 2 activities.
I refined the APPS model (Figure 3) to include these categories, as well as games and additional assessment tools such as CHANGES offered by Gass & Gillisii. More recently I have been influenced by attempts to distinguish client groups by outcomes sought. Gillis and Ringeriii. discuss psychological depth and its relationship to program design and the role of the facilitator. Priest & Gassiv. offer four categories for adventure programs; recreational, educational, developmental and therapeutic, that help to further define aspects of sequence as it relates to program design.
The APPS II has helped me to plan programs and teach program planning for a range of clients in a variety of settings. It does not take the place of seasoned judgement or flexibility, however it does offer a starting point. There are situations in which the model provides a framework for helping me decide how far I am willing to deviate design, what activities I will use and how they will be spotted or belayed.
As time goes on, I am sure of two things. The first is that there is always more to think about. The second is that the experience of others is the best test of any model. Feedback about this model is welcome, as are your stories about what has worked, or not worked for you!
Jude Hirsch, Ed. D.
Coordinator, B.S. Outdoor Education & M.Ed. Outdoor Education Administration
Georgia College & State University
(912) 445-5112/4072
fax (912) 445-1790
jhirsch@mail.gcsu.edu
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~jhirsch/
