(This is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.)

Pedagogy, in it's simplest form, is an educators collection of "activities used for educating or instructing that impart knowledge or skill" - it is what educators DO to transmit information to students. And, as far as I know, no one has found the "best" pedagogy for educating. One could argue that there are as many pedagogies (ways of imparting knowledge) as there are educators. 

As I have written about in the past, adventure practitioners are educators (Team Builders as Educators: The 3 Roles), and they too have pedagogies - ways of working with their groups that impart knowledge or skill. 

What follows is a look at another educator in the adventure educations field, the Trainer. Whether you are an 'in-house' trainer working with your own team building staff who lead programs for your clients or you are a 'lead' trainer (e.g., Training Manager) for a training company that trains trainers who train other adventure practitioners (the training companies clients), here is a training technique you can use to help educators learn and grow.   

Training Educators
What "activities" (defined in a number of ways) do you use to impart knowledge and skills to your staff or trainers so that they are able to find success as an educator? With the limited amount of time you have to make an impact on them, what will be the most effective and efficient way to use your pedagogy? 

I while back, I ran across a useful blog post from from Faculty Focus entitled "Using Guerrilla Tactics to Improve Teaching." The ideas from the authors of the post are relevant to any educator who is tasked with training other educators (please read the article for the finer details of the process). I've taken some editorial liberties to make the "ground rules for guerrilla teaching" fit into an adventure education model I will call "Guerrilla Training:" 

1. A trainee (educator) agrees ahead of time to welcome a "guerrilla trainer" into any part of a program being lead by the trainee. 
2. The guerrilla trainer inserts him/herself into the trainee's group (being mindful of the timing), and observes silently for a minimum of 5 minutes to become acquainted with the topic/flow of the group's process. 
3. The guerrilla trainer is then "able to become part of the [group] and interact with the students." The trainer, "may pose questions, give comments, conduct an activity, etc." (In essence, modeling a part or parts of the facilitation process for the trainee.)
4. The trainer takes no more than 10 minutes for the "training attack" session, leaving on the same wind that brought him/her into the group. (To be clear, 5 minutes for silent observation and than no more that 10 minutes of interaction.)

As the Guerrilla Tactics blog authors note, "In the spirit of guerrilla marketing [a creative low-cost strategy to meet conventional goals] there are several educational "buzz" benefits created with minimal direct cost" - role modeling, collaboration, flexible training times, sharing expertise, "bits" of information instead of overload, and showing support for the trainee. This "drop-in" training allows for some relevant observation time for the trainee. Something that is difficult to building into training sessions but very important to include. 

Making Guerrilla Training part of your training pedagogy might prove to be useful, effective, and efficient. Let me know how it goes. And, if you have other pedagogical training ideas for us please share in the Comments below. ​

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

Since moving to Colorado three years ago, I have met a lot of amazing facilitators in the area. Leo Shettler is such a person. After I saw him open with his frame, 'The Basic Skills for Being Human' I knew you would want to learn about it. Leo has kindly obliged. Thanks Leo, may this one live on forever. (So, amazing!)

FRAMING 'The Basic Skills for Being Human'
​​Imagine a school where everyone is kind and helpful and considerate to everyone there, Teachers and students alike. Imagine walking down the hallways between classes and nearly everyone is smiling. No one is being pushed or shoved or bullied or yelled at or made fun of.  Imagine that between every class at least a dozen other kids give you, and everyone else, a smile or a high five or a friendly greeting as they pass you by on the way to class. Imagine sitting in a classroom where no one is afraid to raise their hand to say they don’t understand something or to ask a question of the teacher.  Imagine a school where the kid who used to always eat lunch alone in the cafeteria is now joined nearly every day by a compassionate student or two wanting everyone to feel they belong.  Imagine a school where everyone wants to help everyone else succeed and be happy.
 
Now imagine a workplace with the same kind of people, imagine a town, a whole world. How can we as individuals get on the right path to create this kind of school, workplace, country or world? What skills are needed?
 
The activities and adventures you will be invited to participate in today are designed to help us all create such a school, such a workplace and such a world.

​"But, before we get started on these adventures, I have three questions for you."
         Question #1.  Are some basketball players better at playing basketball than others? If so, how can you determine this?” (Students will respond by pointing out the sub skills of basketball. For example, shooting, passing, guarding, etc)
 
         Question #2.  Are some bears better at being bears than other bears?  (There will be a mixed reaction with participants taking opposite sides of this question. After some discussion about the sub skills of being a bear, such as finding food, climbing trees, mating, raising cubs, etc., there will be general consensus that some bears are better at being bears than other bears. The point of the discussion is to create an awareness that animals, including people, have sub skills that come with their nature and the better they are at performing those sub skills, the “better” they are as a creature.
 
       Question #3. Are some human beings better at being human beings than other human beings? (You will generally get blank stares of disbelief at this question. I remind them that I did not say “of more value than others” and that by observing the sub skills of basketball players and bears they were able to determine an answer to the first two questions.)  So then, what are the most basic and fundamental skills needed in order to be a good human being?
 
After participants list their opinions, I distribute a one page handout (PDF download below) listing, in alphabetical order, 14 basic sub skills of being human.  One sentence at the top of the page states that the frequent practice of these sub skills will result in you becoming a better human being. The sub skills (sometimes called virtues) are listed with their definitions. Participants are asked to take turns reading these sub skills out loud.
 
Finally, before starting the first activity, participants are asked to watch for good demonstrations of these sub skills from one another throughout the team building/challenge course activities and be ready to acknowledge others for demonstrating the sub skills.
 
(Leo's shares, "Through my observations, acknowledging a person for any behavior tends to reinforce that behavior and increase one’s desire to become even more skilled at it." Practicing these sub skills can help us be more 'human'.)

The Basics Skills for Being Human, Handout

Thanks again to Leo for helping us learn and grow. Let us know how this works for you. 

All the best to you! 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

(This is a 'migration' and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theory posts from FUNdoing to OnTeamBuilding as a way to organize content.)

The main purpose of adventure 'education' is to explore, learn and grow in the areas of personal and interpersonal relationships. Some recognize this as the development of pro-social skills and social emotional learning. Some years back now, I ran across a leadership article at Forbes Online from Jeff Schmitt. I thought it might be a good for educators (i.e., team builders) as well - at least it's a good reminder of the simple things we can do (model) to encourage pro-social development.
 
Adding to Schmitt's encouragement about using the phrases, it's also a nice idea to pass on (teach) this information to our participants when appropriate (e.g., a classroom teacher modeling, showing and practicing the phrases during processing sessions).
 

Schmitt shares 15 Phrases That Build Bridges Between People. Teaching and encouraging these phrases does not take a lot of time, only commitment. Hopefully we are already using them to strengthen the communities we belong to and the groups we work with.

Below is a quick reference to the phrases in the Forbes article. I've also included some additional phrases from my friend Phil Brown who shared them in a Comment at the original Building Bridges post.
​
From Schmitt: 

• Thank you.
• I trust your judgment.
• I don't know. 
• Tell me more. 
• What I hear you saying is...
• I'm on it. 
• How else can I help you?
• I've got your back.
• My pleasure. 
• What if?
• Let me play devil's advocate. 
• Let me think about that.
• Well done. 
• You're right.
• I understand. 

Here are the additional phrases from Phil:

• It's ok. 
• You can do it. 
• Take your time.
• You've got it.
• Excellent work I knew you could. 
• Let me know what you need. 
• I'm right here if you need me. 
• Rip it off like a bandage (in reference to elements like the Zip Line, Pamper Pole, Giant Swing - the longer you think about it the harder it becomes to take the leap)

(Right now, some of you might be thinking about phrases that fall under the categories of coercion and encouragement. Let's save these thoughts for another post.)
 
Phil also share some thinking around his approach to building bridges:
In addition to the phrases I use, I find that the tone of voice is incredibly important in making my participants feel comfortable. Being from England my accent helps a lot too, but I truly feel that (and I train my staff that) a calm tone is essential in making participants feel comfortable and looked after.
 
Jeff, Phil and I ask, "What phrases do you use to make people feel more comfortable, motivated, and appreciated?" Share your thoughts in the Comments area below. 

BONUS TOOL (Print-N-Play)
Here (below) is a print-n-play tool (set of cards) you can use as a visual reminder of the phrases. During a processing session you can scatter out the cards within the center of your processing circle. Participants can scan the cards and use/practice (if they choose) any of the phrases when address others during the discussion. Again, this is simply a tool you can teach and use in order to practice pro-social behaviors within the appropriate context.

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

This was the spirit of a group of teachers in the mid-1960s - the spirit, or soil, in which the seed of the 'What Model' was planted and grew.
 
"We wanted to build a curriculum which would explore the concern for identity by concentrating on the students' own sense of disparity between what they thought about in school, what they were concerned about in their own lives, and the way they acted" (p. 66).
 
In essence, the What? So what? Now what? model was created as a 'process' to help young people navigate every day concerns. The 'Curriculum of Concerns' these teachers built was the overall structure, the What Model was one of the tools within the structure.
 
Terry Borton is the author of, Reach, Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education, published in 1970. Borton, at the time, was an English teacher in the Philadelphia schools during the desegregation era in the United States. After his first year of teaching English (1964), he was inspired to, "talk over an extended period of time with students about things they thought were important" (p. 23). The following summer (1965), Borton and a handful of teachers, "got the chance to run an experimental summer school [Friends' Summer Workshop]...to make an unfettered attempt at finding out how to meet students where they were and show them where they could go" (p. 23). The curriculum they envisioned was designed to explore the diverse social aspect of human life and self-identity. The same area of focus we still have today as 'social' educators and team builders.
 
I could go on with rich examples from the book about these incredible teachers and how they learned to meet their students where they were, a well-known group facilitation strategy still important today, but I'll leave that up to you if you're interested in getting the book. Let's jump to how the What Model came to be.
 
Through a variety of classroom activities like role plays, art and poetry, the students in the Summer Workshops were taught useful things about personal development and human relationships. They were also taught about the many ways of responding to different situations that were common in their lives (again, practicing in the classroom). But, the teachers thought, "unless our curriculum explicitly made the transition from literary metaphor to process, we [doubted] many students would make it [out in the world] by themselves" (p. 75).

​According to behaviorist theory, "[c]hanges in behavior are seen as a function of the stimulus and the way the response is reinforced. Reinforcement of a particular response is usually accomplished by rewarding its occurrence" (p. 77). In behaviorist practice, this process, more often than not, required at least two participants. Someone would be providing the stimulus and another person the response (e.g., teacher and student). Then, if a different response was desired the stimulus provider would make a change in the stimulus in the hopes of a different response.

The teachers surmised, the process (or tool) they would teach to their students would initially involve sensing information or stimuli - noticing something important to them. Then, transforming this information by giving it personal meaning and value. Finally, acting on this meaning and value after, "rehearsing possible actions and picking one to put into the world as an overt response" (p. 78). "The person using these processes," the teachers believed, will not be "governed solely by the nature of the stimulus and/or reinforcement of the response but is also influenced by feedback on how successful [s]he is achieving [her]his own goals" (p. 79).

Here is the crux of this historical exploration. The What Model was initially developed as a personal growth tool (process). Something young people (the teachers' students) could apply out in the world to help them in the pursuit of their goals - to help them act upon their real life concerns. Within this Model, awareness and feedback were vital. Borton writes, "awareness of the difference between his [sic] response, its actual effect, and the intended effect, forms feedback which can be used to modify behavior" (p. 79). Implicitly, the awareness and feedback were the responsibility of the individual working through the process. However, there are a number of examples in the book where feedback is offered by teachers and students alike over role play exercises and students sharing personal experiences they were going through at the time.

'What?' for Sensing out the difference between response, actual effect, and intended effect [remember, based on a personal goal]; 'So What?' for Transforming that information into immediate relevant patterns of meaning [awareness and feedback - did that meet the goal or not]; 'Now What?' for deciding on how to Act on the best alternative and reapply it in other situations [when doing something different to meet a goal is required]" (p. 88).

For those of you familiar with the What Model, you have probably had the realization that its initial intent rings pretty true to how it's still being used today and how else it's used today. Eighteen years after Reach, Touch and Teach was published, the What Model was included in the book, Islands of Healing: A Guide to Adventure Based Counseling, by Schoel, Prouty & Radcliffe. With a reference to Borton, the Model is shared as a "Debriefing sequence" for adventure-based experiential group work. After an adventurous experience, a group can use the What? So What? Now What? sequence to comfortably think about what happened during the experience and eventually get to the "nub of the experience" and use the insights for future interactions or change.
 
Since, Islands of Healing, the What Model continues to make its way into the reflection and processing experiences of many different groups. It has also been combined with other Models to emphasize (and even simplify) the pathways in complex psychological theories (e.g., Ladder of Inference). The good news (still) is, What? So What? and Now What? Model is a useful tool (an information processing model) in any team builders repertoire. And, to know it was designed to help people meet the goals they aspired to, keeps us on track to use it for the same ends.

Keep doing the good work out there! 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

I'm not completely sure why, but I connect well with and remember things better in threes. I think it started with collecting objects/props in threes - as activity equipment and juggling tools. 

This model (repurposed a bit) comes from the book, Teaching Online: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.) by Susan Ko and Steve Rossen (I'm interested in teaching online - especially, learning how to create continuing education online courses for adventure educators). In one of the initial chapters the authors tell us that when teaching online you must continuously review your course design and content, reflect on the effectiveness of the design and content (Is it doing what you want it to do?), and revise the design and content if it's not working for you or your students.

I realized right away that this is a nice processing model as well. In my simple world I see processing as a noun - it is a time when the facilitator and participants get together to create a space for talking about recent events. During these spaces we use 'verbs' to consider the impacts of the events: 

Review - participants simply state what they remember about the current event. I like to ask, "If we were watching a video of the last activity tell me what you would see and hear." Or, "What do you remember seeing and hearing during the last activity?" (Trying to leave out opinion at this stage.) (Note: Roger Greenaway uses the term "reviewing" as the noun for bringing participants together to talk. Check out his comprehensive Reviewing Website on the topic.) Then we can....

Reflect - Here we think and talk about the meaning of what was seen or heard (in most cases, talking about 'events' that are connected to the outcomes programmed for the group). Topics can be participant generated or facilitator generated depending on the kind of program you are working:

• Why was there a lot of laughing?
• What were some of the reasons for talking loudly?
• What are the consequences of talking at the same time?
• Why do you think you divided yourselves into two groups?
• What grade would you give your overall teamwork?
• What behaviors lead to the grade?

Reflection is the place for opinions, assumptions, and feelings. All good things to talk about. 

Revise - After reflecting we can think and talk about how we might want to change - add behaviors that are missing and try to reduce/eliminate behaviors that are not useful:

• What can we do to get a better grade on our teamwork?
• What can help us get along more productively during the next activity?
• How would taking turns to speak help us?
• What do we need in order to be our best selves at this time? 

We use these revision to help create and adjust the norms (contract) we would like to operate with during group work. 

This basic approach is not completely novel - it's another version of a large body of work on processing. It's fairly synonymous with the, What? So What? Now What? approach (future OTB blog post). These 3-Rs might be, to some, a clearer way to approach a processing session. 

What other "simple" models have you used for processing? Please leave us a Comment below. 

And More
​The original intent of Ko & Rossen is to use the 3-Rs an an evaluation tool for online courses. This applies just as well to evaluating a team building program. Use this model after a program to process with co-facilitators or personally if you just finished a solo lead. It's a 'process' of data collection that can inform your practice and help you learn and grow. 

As always, we'd love to know what you think. Leave us a Comment. 

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

(This is a 'migration' post - it was first shared at FUNdoing.com. We're moving theory posts from FUNdoing to OnTeamBuilding as a way of organizing content.)

What are your foundational principles of practice (POP)? 
In other words, what do you believe to be true when it comes to developing and leading/facilitating adventure-based programs? And, the other question worth exploring (at another time perhaps) is where these beliefs come from?

For me, my POPs seem to be revealed, more often than not, when they meet up with other's POPs (I like to call these interactions, POP Parties!!). Where there is diversity there is the opportunity for wonderful dialogue, as we know to be true in this field of Adventure Education (and we know, unfortunately, the opposite is also true).

Here's an example of a one of the good POP parties from my past. Organizing my vault of hard-copy treasures from workshops past, I found a handout from a Ph.D. (higher ed faculty member) in the field of recreation who lead a workshop at a state-level Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance conference a while back. The Ph.D. provided a handout of thoughts for us to remember and reflect upon from the presentation. I will take an educated guess that this handout included some of this person's POPs. (I remember the workshop to be full of passionate dialogue - good stuff.) 

This could be the first in a series of Agree or Disagree posts (if this theme catches on.) I would like to present some of the information provided in the handout and whether I (or my POP) agree with the Ph.D. or if I disagree, and my POP in juxtaposition.

Handout: Initiative exercises and activities offer a series of clearly defined problems or tasks to a group that must be solved before an acceptable solution to the challenge may be reached. [Note: This is the first line on the handout.]

I Disagree: For me, this statement is too limiting. Using words like, "clearly defined problems," "must be solved," and "acceptable solution" limit my programming opportunities for the opposite. 

Handout: The problem-oriented approach to learning can be useful in developing each individual's awareness of decision-making, leadership, and obligations and strengths of each member within the group. 

I Agree: And, useful for developing a lot more pro-social behaviors. I especially like the use of the phrase, "obligation and strengths of each member within the group." I believe, through practice and theory, that the use of adventure education is for social development - I teach my student that we work within the 'social' curriculum realm of education (as opposed to an 'academic' curriculum). 

Handout: [When programing and facilitating initiatives] select a problem that is suited to the age and physical ability of the group. An older group is easily stunned off by a childish situation, and [an]other group may be quickly frustrated by problems that require physical or mental development beyond their capacities. 

I Agree: In educational terms this is considered proper scaffolding. We work up from where the students (or participants) are, adding new knowledge and experiences to what they already understand and have done in the past. I like the point included about "physical ability of the group." I've noticed over time (I include myself in this observation) that age-related programming is easier to do up front based on our experiences, but there is little consideration of the physical abilities of the participants - often because we do not have (i.e., did not collect) information about this area until we start working with a group. Being prepared to adjust an activity is a valuable skill for a facilitator to develop. 

Handout: Situations may arise when a participant will break a ground rule of the challenge. The penalty for such an infraction can be either a time penalty or starting over. Be strict in administering the rules of the problem. If the group suspects that you don't care about following the rules, the problem will resolve into horseplay and become functionally meaningless.  

I Disagree: If I stick to this practice (safety concerns withstanding) as a hard-and-fast rule in my programming I eliminate the opportunity to learn from "functional meaninglessness." When an outside force is constantly holding a group accountable for their actions, how does the group learn about taking responsibility for themselves - we miss the opportunity to talk about such things. If 'following rules' is an objective the group is with you to practice, then by all means, be the moderator. Stay flexible to other learning opportunities.  

Handout: As an instructor [facilitator], you [are] obligated, during the problem-solving process, to be silent. 

I Disagree: [I get the most pushback on this part of my POP.] I believe that there are important learnings to recognize "during" a group process that might be better reflected upon in the moment than after the moment has past. Of course, overdoing this (stepping in) can be counter-productive, so we choose these moments carefully. On a related note, after reading more into John Dewey's work with experiential education, I have come to agree that the facilitator is part of the group (arguably a small part) with experiences that can help the group at strategic points (again, not overdoing this) during their experiences. My reasoning for this part of my POP is about the doors/tools of opportunity. Pointing out that there are, or giving permission to explore, other doors/tools of possibly will help a group to learn about choices when they are "stuck" believing there are none, or very few. In time we hope the group understands they might not be limited to only the doors/tools they can see and feel free to explore (look for) more options. 

How about you? Are you agreeing or disagreeing here? What is your POP? I hope my point is evident. (But just in case.) It can be good to explore, from time-to-time, your principles of practice. This makes us reflective practitioners - important to meaningful education.

Attend or start a POP party. Share your thoughts (you can do it here in the comments area below). Agree, disagree, ponder, question. This dialogue helps us all focus in on what's important to us as educators and how we approach our programming and our groups. And, spend a little time considering where your beliefs come from - like our groups, are we stuck using a tool that might not be the best for the job? Or, are tools other people are using better suited? 

Who doesn't like a party?!

Chris Cavert, Ed. D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

The Team Wall
The Team Wall 'element' is among the oldest challenges in the history of Ropes/Challenge Courses. Dig back into the early days of Outward Bound in the United States, you'll find the Team Wall as part of the team building that took place before going 'out' on trips. Other historical records show the 'Wall' was repurposed into a team challenge from military obstacle courses of old. Today, Team Walls still stand among a wide range of opinion - "Why are we still using the Wall? What purpose does it have on a course? Is it worth it?"

Is the Wall a low element or a high element? What learning/lessons can we enhance by using the element? Are these learnings worth the risk (perceived and actual)? Should we belay the element or not? Does the element bring a team together or actually separate them? These and other questions about the Wall are commonplace. Where do you stand?

One Educator's (Practitioners) Opinion
I (Chris Cavert) started my career (PA Trained) using the 12-foot Team Wall with no belay. Proper training for spotting was always important - especially watching out for the 'windshield wiper' falls at the sides. What I learned was: 

• No more than three up on the deck at a time. 
• If you were helping at the top, both feet had to be on the deck. 
• Don't grab any belt loops of a climber. 
• Only one person on the 'team' could be moving up or down at a time. 
• After you went up and came back down you could only spot. 
• The last person had to be an amazing jumper. 

When I became a course manager I learned more about 'best practices' (who remembers the 'Red' booklet?). It came to my attention that there was a limit to where a participant should be above the ground (was this their head, torso, feet - wasn't clear as I recall, and I remember 42 inches??) - basically, if the torso went above the hands of the shortest spotter, the climber should have a harness on and a belay system attached. However, at the time, the Team Wall was the exception. 

Then, Ropes/Challenge Course builders began to mitigate the risk - they started building Team Walls with belay systems (shown in the picture above). I saw Walls that were belayed from the ground and some belayed from the top through a GriGri hanging off the belay cable - a facilitator took out the slack in the rope and let the GriGri do the rest. 

I liked (still do) the idea of the belay, but I wondered, as I saw these belayed Walls being used, did it change the activity - was it now 'too safe' as the argument about adventure education becoming too safe blossomed. And, looking back, I never witnessed a major 'fall' at this element only major bruises and scrapes getting over the top. Was (is) the element worth it?

Around the time of the new operational dualism - belay or not to belay (that is the questions), which still exists at the time of this writing, I stopped programming the Team Wall. I found many other ways to build team success. However, I still, on occasion, work for course manages who program the Team Wall for clients. If I am contracted to run the Wall, here's how I manage it (cleared by the course manager): 

• Challenge by Choice is clearly introduced with lots of choice options for participation. 
• If there is a belay we use it as described in the LOPs of the program. 
• Super-spotting, all the way around, is always done or no one goes up (belay or not). 
• No more than three helpers at the top, both feet on the platform. 
• Top helpers rotate down in the same order they went up - unless someone asks to come down earlier. And, no helper at the top should be up for too many climbers.  
• No grabbing clothes, only limbs and the harness (all climbers are in a harness whether there is a belay system in place or not). 
• Only one person moves at a time, up or down (heavily facilitated). 
• You can help in any way, at any time and you must rotate helping 'positions' after each climber. For example, if you lifted a person, for the next person you become a spotter. 
• There is a clear and interactive processing session about the activity and what everyone is taking away from it - both the positive and not-so-positive information. 

Where do you position yourself around the Team Wall? What are your learning outcomes if you use the Wall? What does the Team Wall do for you that other elements cannot?

​Leave us a Comment so we can learn and grow together. 

Be well...

Chris Cavert, Ed.D.

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.

I do love questions! (Thanks for asking Aman.) I'm ready to dive in. Using the resources I have on hand, the books on my shelf (referencing some support), here's what I understand (and follow when programming) when it comes to ice-breakers, de-inhibitizers, and energizers. 
 
The earliest source I have related to adventure-based programming is the Project Adventure book, Islands of Healing: A Guide to Adventure-Based Counseling (1988), by Schoel, Peouty & Radcliffe.

When Project Adventure started training educators (late 1970s early 80s) on the use of adventure-based activities they promoted the following categories, suggesting activities be done from these categories (in a progression) in this order:

• Ice Breaker/Acquaintance Activities
• De-Inhibitizer Activities
• Trust Activities  
• Communication Activities  
• Decision Making/Problem Solving Activities  
• Social Responsibility Activities, and
• Personal Responsibility Activities (two SEL topics back in the 70s!) 

 
As we can see, ice breakers and de-inhibitizers are on the list - energizers did not get a listing at that time. We can also see ice breakers and de-inhibitizers were done at the onset of a program/progression - done to bring the group together in a 'comfortable' (comfort zone) way and progress into simple challenges (e.g., being silly) and risks (e.g., talking to others) so they could eventually step out of their comfort zones in order to learn and grow. So, lets break down Aman's question. (The other categories we can explore in another post.) 
 
Ice Breakers
From Islands of Healing, "[t]he objective of Ice Breakers/Acquaintance Activities [I position Name Games here as getting acquainted], is to provide opportunities for group members to get to know each other and begin feeling comfortable with each other through activities, Initiatives and games that are primarily fun, non-threatening and group-based." [Note: There are different kinds of ice breakers - e.g., initiatives - lead in an 'ice breaker' way.] 
 
The key aspects in this objective, for me, are 'primarily fun' and 'non-threatening.' Mark Collard, in his book, Serious Fun tells us, "To truly 'break the ice' and, critically, create a platform upon which your group will thrive, an experience must reflect most, but hopefully all, of the following five criteria. It must be:  

• Fun - invites people to laugh, share, play and loosen up;
• Non-Threatening - everything occurs within you group's [not your] Comfort Zone;  
• Highly Interactive - ample opportunity for people to mix and share with others;
• Simple & Easy To Understand - quick and easy directions; and
• Success-Oriented - build a sense of group accomplishment and worth. 

 
The Handshakes Memory Game is an Ice Breaker that can meet all five criteria. The handshakes are fun and often silly (using handshakes that are not embarrassing). Most people are okay with (touching) handshakes because of acceptable norms, so they are non-threatening. There is a lot of interaction when going back through the handshakes (and players are learning some names). The directions and demonstrations are quick and easy. And, most players can remember all of their handshake buddies in the end contributing to the overall feeling of success and comradery in the group.  
 
Jennifer Stanfield also warns us about ice breakers. She states, "[m]any people have negative connotations with team building and ice breakers because they have been put in situations where choice and control were taken away. They were put on the spot too early [speaking in front of the whole group for example], embarrassed, asked to share intimate information, act silly, or perform in front of a group before they were comfortable doing so" (Tips & Tools for the Art of Experiential Group Facilitation, 2nd ed, 2016).

This warning tells us to consider the 'ice breakers' you plan to lead through the participants eyes - leaning to the side of super-safe at first, then progress from there. Make your best guess - if it doesn't work out, rebound with another activity to reengage your group. With time you'll get better at these choices as you see how thinks play out. 
 
My (Chris') general rules for ice breakers: Little to no contact (Handshakes is my limit), participants are moving and mixing around talking with each other in pairs or small groups - usually sharing names, and people have a choice as to how much they share with others if they even choose to talk at all (they can mingle around, listen in and be a part of the group in this way).
 
De-Inhibitizer
Back in Islands of Healing, de-inhibitizers, "provide a setting wherein group participants are able to take some risks as well as make improvement in commitment and a willingness to appear [silly] in front of others." In Cowstails & Cobras II, Rohnke explains, "[d]e-inhibitizers get the group to let go, do something out of the ordinary, and act silly." 
 
One example of a de-inhibitizer is Dog Shake (Silver Bullets, Rohnke, 1st edition). Participants are asked to position themselves on all fours, and literally, shake their entire bodies (especially the face) like a dog shaking off water - we've all seen a dog do this, now it's time for us to try (I think this can also be an energizer). Just something silly (if it's done at the right time, not right away). 
 
Another example is Barn Yard (found in The Cooperative Sport & Games Book, by Terry Orlick, 1978). Every person is given (whispered) the name of a barnyard animal - about four or five animals are used. Then, everyone scatters out into the playing area. On GO! (eyes closed or open), participants make the sound (and movement if desired) of their given animals in order to find, and group with, the other animals that are like them. 
 
And why would we challenge our participants to do these things? So they challenge themselves. To 'let go,' to be 'silly' and know it's okay to take some risks in order to grow together as a group. The idea that, 'we're all in this together, no matter what' is an objective of the de-inhibitizer. 
 
De-inhibitizer, as an activity category, is not seen in any of the newer publications that I have. In the most recent activity book (on my shelf) from Project Adventure (The Hundredth Monkey by Nate Folan, 2012), the activities are not even categorized by type (ice breakers, de-inhibitizers and so on), they fall into 'Learning Themes' like Playing to Play, Building Trust, Relationships and Community, Self-Awareness and Self-Management and other Social Emotional Learning themes. The trend I'm seeing in activity books is focused on finding and sequencing activities that meet the needs and objectives of the group in a way that participants feel comfortable moving from the known to the unknow - learning and growing through the process. (It's now about, I theorize, subjective interpretation - more below - and the particular delivery of an activity that determines where it fits into a progression/program.) 
 
My general rules for de-inhibitizers (if I even do anything on purpose to be 'silly'): I sense my group will have fun with what I've going to do (try), very short in duration with a clear choice of opting out, and we talk (at least a little) about the idea of how we 'look' in front of others - what is our self-talk, where does it come from, and how does it serve us (or not serve us). 
 
Subjectivity 
'Fun' ( an ice breaker) and 'silly' (a de-inhibitizer) are very subjective. Something fun for you might seem very silly to someone else. Something silly could be downright embarrassing. This is where easing into your program, getting a sense of the group and testing out their interactions together helps you to choose activities 'right' for the moment. In other words, you need a good number of activities to choose from (in your plan) as you move forward - being able to 'switch things up' when needed. 
 
Soap Box 
There are A LOT of people (facilitators, educators, trainers) who have contributed lists of activities on the internet as a way to provide resources for team builders (and as a way to guide people to their online presence). Many of these lists, in my opinion, misrepresent the types of activities shared. Especially the 'ice breaker' lists. The activities go way beyond what I would lead as an ice breaker (under my general rules).

For example, I've seen, on more than one list, Helium Stick listed as an ice breaker. I have yet to see this one led by anyone I know in a way that is purposefully fun, getting to know names or keeping people in their comfort zones. (If you don't know Helium Stick, you can find examples on the web.) The subjectivity lies, I'll assume, in the way people have been taught and understand programming and sequencing activities. I've shared what I, and others, believe about ice breakers and de-inhibitizers. It's now up to you to define what they mean to you.
 
Energizers
Which leads us to the final consideration from Aman. Let's count, 1, 2, 3......15, 16, 17 books are piled around me right now. Most of them are activity books from various people (Rohnke, Butler, Folan & Cain). I could not find a reference to the activity category, 'energizer' in any of them. There are all sorts of links to these activities however, on the web. They are defined (very literally) as activities used to energize participants or groups. Pretty straight forward. 
 
HERE's a pretty good list of energizers (from SchoolWeb) - most of them follow my 'general rules' (below). If you do a quick scan of the activities on this list (just reading the sorter descriptions), you'll see that some could be considered ice breakers and others de-inhibitizers (basing on my general rules). Some could even be turned into the other activity categories listed above (e.g., Communication or Problem-Solving Activities). 
 
Using energizers for such a purpose (commonly known as 'Brain Breaks' in educational settings), is about moving the blood around the body, back into all the fingers and toes - shaking things out a bit. For me it's even about 'clearing out' what just took place, so we are ready to move on to the next task. 
 
My general rules for energizers: Participants will be moving most, if not all, of their body parts, simple instructions, fairly short in duration (again, using these transitions from one team building task to another), they can be done individually or in small groups and they don't require any processing upon completion. And, if the energizer has the potential to be embarrassing (e.g., Barn Yard), moving people out of their comfort zones, use these when you believe your group is ready to de-inhibitize.  

It is easy to see the grey between these three categories of activities. we all have our own narratives based on our experiences. Stay mindful and step back if needed. Use care, be caring and take care of your groups. 
 
Warm Ups
Wait! But what about Warm Ups? We'll save this one, and others, for another time.....
 
WOW! I had so much fun digging through my books I lost track of the word count! I hope this long road of information gave you some clarity or some comparative data or maybe even some disagreement. Considering your team building activity sequencing and programming, my best hope is that you are meeting the needs of your participants, pulling them into the experience and the learning (staying within the growth mindset) and not pushing them away (into a closed mindset). 
 
Other thoughts to consider? Please leave us a Comment so we can talk about it. 

Be well and keep us posted!! 

​Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know. ​

I recently received an email from a team builder that I think is worth sharing with you (permission was given to share). I've worked at, with and for a lot of different programs over the years and this topic surfaces with everyone - what do we 'call' what we're doing? 

Here's the email:

Have you ever lived this concern or heard someone else voice it? Have you asked anyone for their answer to this concern? I have heard this response more than once: "We don't call it 'team building' any more, because the term has fallen out of favor with a lot of people, so we call our program......(pick any other related descriptor for what we do, it's been tried)." 

Team Building
​I'd like to start with the term, team building. I've tried 'selling' other terms (e.g., community building, group development, and adventure learning to name a few), but let's face it - team building sums up what we do. It's a term people know. And, many of these people have had great team building experiences.

So, I'm sticking with it. I've been on a mission over the years to bring 'team building' back into a positive light. One way I'm doing this is to educate people (my students, clients and program participants) about the different kinds of 'team' programs that are possible. (Myself and others believe the term, 'team building' has fallen out of favor because some entities call any sort of team or group program, team building - and, in reality, no team building occurs.)

In a past OTB blog post, A Typology of Team Interaction, I advance the work of others about the difference between Team Bonding, Team Building and Team Development programs. If we are better able to fit one of these specific programs to our group's needs, the outcomes can be more aligned with participant expectations. And then of course, we must provide 'bonding,' 'building' and 'development' experiences that make an impact so people know why they gave up their time for your program. (If the 'why' isn't answered, it's likely people will walk away with a low-impact experience.) 

Ropes or Challenge Course (The Noun)
Let's move to the "what are we calling it" trend (the noun). Today, two of the most (dare I say) generic names for the 'facilities-based adventure education' (Prouty, Adventure Education: Theory and Applications) tools we work with are a, 'Challenge Course' and a 'Ropes Course' (a lot of the course signage you see, like in the picture above, will say, Ropes Course based on traditional language used in the field). These courses can be lows only, highs only or a combination of both. 

I have chosen to go with the 'challenge course' label, based on my alignment with The Association for Challenge Course Technology and the use of the term in their current ANSI/ACCT 03-2019 Challenge Course and Canopy/Zip Line Tours Standards. If you align with PRCA, the Professional Ropes Course Association, then you might be a 'Ropes Course' person. The name (the noun) for the tool, in my opinion, is not as important as what (the verb) the tool can do for an individual, a team or a group. 

Naming What We're Doing (The Verb)
​Reading (into) R.s email, there is:

• a team builder's perspective (what is the team builder doing),
• an organizational perspective (what is the organization doing), and
• a marketing perspective (what is marketing doing). 

​Let's flip these perspectives, and start with the marketing - getting people interested in  your program. I am in the Seth Godin camp (author of, This is Marketing). Here is some content from the book that can give us Godin's initial perspective: 

     Marketing is the act of making change happen...You haven't made an impact until you've changed someone. [We certainly can agree we are after this outcome in our 'building' and 'development' programs.]

     Effective marketing now relies on empathy and service...[it] is the generous act of helping someone solve a problem. Their problem. It's a chance to serve. 

     Marketing...involves creating honest stories - stories that resonate and spread. Marketers offer solutions, opportunities for humans to solve their problems and move forward.

Godin's 'new' marketing is about building trust by providing products/services that solve problems (not by first creating a product and then trying to sell it - as in traditional marketing practices). We know, as challenge/ropes course practitioners we are in the business of helping solve problems - helping others learn and grown (in the growth types of programs). The questions is, do we have the skills and abilities to first uncover the 'problems' and then actually help 'solve' them. These questions can be answered by the organization and the team builder. 

Where does the organization fit in? This could be a very long answer, but let's summarize with some considerations. First-and-foremost, who 'is' the organization and who ultimately makes the decisions? Who are the stakeholders? Do these stakeholders adhere to (recognize, even know about) the Standards within the challenge/ropes course industry? For example, are these stakeholders considering:

B.1.2. The organization shall represent itself, and market its products and services, accurately to the public, and 
B.1.4. The organization and its staff shall operate within the bounds of their organizational and individual competencies. (ANSI/ACCT 03-2019 Standards)

Organizations want to thrive and keep the doors open, this is a given. Economic stability is important. Are the stakeholders making decisions based on economics or common practices in the field (that guide us towards offering exceptional programs that will not fall out of favor with participants). Is the organization, 'operating within their competencies?' I'm for running exceptional programs within my competencies so every group I work with will spread the word that team building can be an amazing life-changing experience. 

Finally, there is the team builder designing and running the programs. Back to the ANSI/ACCT Standards: 
C.1.2. Staff shall operate within the limits of their technical and interpersonal/program management skill level, and 
C.2.1.3. Staff shall conduct activities according to the organization's guiding policies, procedures and practices. (Just two Standards examples.) 

The way I see it, whatever you are going to call your program, it is (very) important to have people (staff) who can 'solve the problem(s)' the client is bringing so trust can be forged (and return business and positive word of mouth can grow). If a client is interested in having some adventurous team bonding fun, are there competent staff to design and deliver such a program? (How do you know?) If a client wants to find out some of the blind spots in her organization, are there staff who can design and deliver an experience (team building) that will bring out and test functional (or dysfunctional) group behaviors and be able to process some transfer of learning to the organization's growth or next action steps? (How do you know you have the staff?) If a client wants to practice the behaviors that lead to being more productive (team development), are there staff that can do this? (How do you know?) 

For me, when 'naming' a service (or product), it comes down to what the staff (the ones in front of the clients) can deliver - can promise and deliver. It took me a while to solidify my own platform - what I can promise and deliver. I train team builders. Are you, and/or your staff, team builders? Yes. What skills and abilities do you and/or your staff bring in confidently to a team building program? Awesome! What can you and/or your staff do a little bit better on when it comes to planning, leading and processing a team building program? Let me tell you how we can work together to increase your skills and abilities in these areas. I have to know my limits (skills and abilities) so I can, "offer solutions, opportunities for [my clients] to solve there problems and move forward."

This is what brings people back to us, keeps the doors open, and gives team building a better reputation. Name it and then deliver what you promise!! 

R., maybe not as "few" words as you were after, but I hope there are some things that can help you move forward. I have yet to find anyone with 'the' answer to this query, we've got to keep doing the good work no matter what we (at times, have to) call it. 

We'd love to read your thinking on this one - leave us a Comment. 

Be well!! Keep me posted.

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know. 

*[A version of this article, 'Educators on the Course' was published in the ACCT newsletter a few years ago. I wanted to add it here at OTB to keep it alive.]

Do you consider yourself a team builder? Okay, how about this, are you an educator? The answer will depend on factors like our clients’ objectives, program phylosophy, and/or one’s personal approach to team building (see, A Typology of Team Interactions). Specifically, when it comes to a personal approach, I have worked with two different types of team bulders over the last 20 years – the recreational and the educational. Please understand as you read on, neither type is better than the other. One’s approach will depend on the purpose and intended outcome(s) of a particular program. 
 
When we are programming for recreational team building (we can be recreational team builders), there is no time spent reflecting on a group's (or client's) behaviors, interactions, and learnings from their programmed activities. For example, we provide adventures for groups (and individuals) like climbing programs, adventure races, and adventure park events without any planned reflection. In contrast, an educational team builder (facilitator) will spend time with his/her groups looking back on their adventures - reflecting and processing. Ultimately (and hopefully), helping them discover useful behaviors that are transferable to other areas of their lives. 

Historically, educational team builders, using ground-level games, initiatives, and high course elements, consider themselves to be 'facilitators' (mostly used as a generic term for someone helping a group move through learning expereinces). But this is only part of the educational picture. As educational team builders it is important to know that being a facilitator is only one of three possibile educational roles we can assume in connection with group learning. 
 
Most of us have come to understand that in the field of experiential education (as team builders, we find ourselves grounded in this field), facilitation is an integral part of its success and effectiveness. It is part of the experiential philosophy. Through adventurous activities, a purposeful facilitator can guide groups towards, and encourage exploration of, interpersonal and intrapersonal change.[1] Christine Hogan supports this perspective by noting that, “[f]acilitation is concerned with encouraging open dialogue among individuals with different perspectives so that diverse assumptions and options may be explored.”[2]
 
Facilitators use “real time” experiences (those that just occurred) for such explorations. Put another way, experiential facilitators (i.e., team builders) provide social experiences, in the form of adventurous activities, to help bring to the surface the ways in which individuals interact with each other. These interactions are then reflected upon and discussed (processed), in order to determine if any changes need to be (or want to be) implemented. As educational team builders we facilitate “social education,” being different from, but closely related to “academic education.” Karl Rohnke and Steve Butler tell us that we get to teach “the basics of communication, cooperation and trust in a milieu of FUN.”[3] Again, facilitation is only one aspect of a typology of educational roles we can choose as a team builder. Once these roles are understood we can see that we move through a balance (or maybe in imbalance) of being an instructor, a teacher, or a facilitator depending on the demands of the educational experience. 
 
Here are some of the ways educational roles present themselves during a team building program:
 
The Instructor: As an instructor, the team builder will be telling the group what needs to be done. For example: 

• "These are the boundaries around the area..."
• "This is how we put on a helmet and harness..."
• "You can put your hands here and here, please don't put them here."
• "This is how you will be belaying..." (when instructing participant belay)
• "This is who we will need for a belay team..."
• "You will be lowering a climber in this way..."

 
There are some things within a team building program we do not want our participants experientially figuring out (e.g. How to belay). In most cases, the instructor is needed to set safe parameters for the group. 
 
The Teacher: The teacher provides direction and possibilities to explore without giving solutions. There are times when pointing a way can lead to great discovery. It's the nudge early on that can help produce take-aways for other 'facilitated' experiences. For example, a teach might say things like: 

• "I've seen other groups come up with three possible solutions." 
• "I would bet there is someone in your group that has an answer." 
• "Look around, what resources do you have at your disposal?" 
• "You might consider taking some time to collect some data from one of the ideas you have to see where it leads you." 
• "Let's take a break to check in with everyone - maybe this will help." 
• "I heard a lot of good ideas, what haven't you tried yet?" 

These little nudges might be all a group needs to move from where they are to a different perspective, to an answer, or at least to figure out what they were talking about isn't going to work. Often times, the teacher comes out when there is a time concern. The need (pressure) to 'get going' outweighs other aspects of the program. This is not good or bad, it's a choice. How this choice influences outcomes is the question.
 
The Facilitator: Many of us understand this role as the educator who will "ask" and not "tell" - always asking questions or making statements, letting the group figure out the task on their own (or not). Some common facilitation strategies include: 

• "You can decide on that as a group."
• "What do you think you should do?" 
• "I hear what you are asking, but it's not my role to answer that for you."
• "These are the rules. There are no other rules." 
• "As a group, you have all the information you need?" 
• "Yes, it's looks like you have a problem to solve. What are you going to do about it?"

 
When we take on, or move into, the role of facilitator, we also take the time to reflect or process the task once it is completed (or at other times during the group's experience). How did your planning go? Did you come up with a plan that everyone agreed to? How do you know? Did anyone find they had to change the plan? Why? What were some of the challenges you encountered during the task? What were some of the ways you solved these challenges? How did you work as a team? Together? Independently? What feelings arose during the task? Frustration? Excitement? How did these feeling affect your expereince? Were you successful? What learnings will be important for you to remember? What advise would you give the next group assigned this task? 
 
When we stay in the educational roles of the instructor and teacher, we are still educating, but we might not consider taking any time to reflect upon or process the task - we are providing information we hope will turn into knowledge and then learning for the group (some may know this 'hope' as The Mountain Speaks for Itself). For many different reasons, these educators might simply move on to what comes next in the plan, whatever that might be. However, could we as the educator, who instructed the group through a task, take some time to talk about it? Yes, of course. This is moving into the role of facilitator. Could a teacher do the same thing? Of course. So, an educator’s role is not cut and dry (unfortunately many educators think it is). Roles can change in relation to the context of the educational experience and the intended outcomes. 
 
But wait! What about a “leader?” The one “up in front” or “in charge” is often seen as a leader. Are they not educators? A number of publications in the adventure education field refer to the experiential educator as a leader.[4] As one example, Rohnke and Butler, in their book, Quicksilver tell us the “leader” facilitates the process and “the leader/facilitator doesn’t provide all the answers to the group; primarily the participants learn from each other." So, there are some who consider the one(s) responsible for/to the group to be the leader(s). However, this can be misleading. 
 
Peter Senge, writing during a wave of change around leadership, believed that the “new…leaders are designers, stewards, and teachers…they are responsible for learning.[5] Since we can easily say that all educators are responsible for learning then the leader is surely an educator. However, if you were to dig into the plethora of leadership books[6] available to us there is one key difference in the position of the leader – he/she is a part of the group being lead. The leader is part of the goals and objectives of the group, shares in success and rewards of the group’s accomplishments. Is, in fact, affected by his/her own leadership. So, yes, a leader is an educator, but will also choose between the roles of instructor, teacher, and facilitor while leading those willing to follow. 
 
As team builders and reflective practitioners [7] in the field, it is important to know how we can “educate” in relation to the context of an educational situation. We can instruct, we can teach, or we can facilitate. From a traditional experiential mindset we often take on the role of the facilitator. We provide our clients with educative experiences in order for them to learn from these experiences and each other. But are we always, or should we always be, facilitating? We must consider situations that call for other educational roles. Just like programming appropriate activities for particular objectives and projected outcomes, we, as team builders, can also choose the appropriate educational role to go along with an activity depending on the needs of our clients and the context of the experience. 

Since these educator roles came into focus for me, I have been more purposeful about them when programming participant expereinces. I don't believe, at this point, there is a 'balance' of the three - each one being used equally. Every program (context) will be unique. What I'm looking at is how I might be able to use the roles in different expereinces and, am I over-using a role, or am I not moving into a particualr role enough. Here's one example of this thinking: 
 
The Harness Demo. If you work with high challenge courses, you've been here. Typically, I would gathered my group, give everyone a harness and helment, then talk them through the steps while they responded with what I asked them to do (or not). I would help those who needed it and we would keep going. This is straight up an Instructor role. Here's what I've been doing now. I am wearing what my participants will be wearing - a sit harness and helmet in correct orientation. Each participant stands behind a harness helmet pile (I redirect poeple, if needed, to a more appropriate size pile). Then, I say, "Please put on your harness and helmet. It should look the way I am wearing mine. Most importantly, the waist belt should be above your hip bones. Ready go."
 
This type of Harness Demo, to me, includes all three educator roles. The Instructor tells everyone where the waist belt needs to be. The Teacher is providing the end result. The Facilitator is letting them figure out the steps to the result. And, I've put the group into another 'team building' activity they can work through. When someone comes up to me and says, "Am I ready?" I can say, "Yes or No." If it's a, "No," this person can assess, identify a problem (with help from others), solve it (with help, or not) and check in again. When it's a, "Yes," I like to then observe what they decide to do - help others or not (for example). All great opportunities to talk about. Does this student-centered approach take longer than the Instructor-lead approach? In my experience, it takes about the same amount of time, but I have given them more of a group and personal learning experience. 
 
It doesn't take long to consider educator roles when programming. If we take the time, what else is possible? 

Footnotes 
1]For a look at some of the philosophical foundations of adventure-based programming, see Miles & Priest’s (1999)Adventure Programmingand Nadler & Luckner’s (1992)Processing the adventure experience: Theory and practice. Another great foundational text, if you can find a copy, is Adventure Education(1990) by Miles & Priest, Venture Publishing. ISBN: 0-910251-39-8.
2]The quote is found on p. 10 of Hogan’s book, Understanding facilitation: Theory & principles. Even though Hogan’s book does not deal specifically with adventure facilitation, she provides a concise perspective on the historical roots of facilitation and where it is utilized. 
3]Rohnke, K. & Butler, S. (1995). Quicksilver: Adventure games, initiative problems, trust activities and a guide to effective leadership. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. This book is one of our adventure-based favorites. It includes a plethora of great activities supported by noteworthy theoretical content (academically speaking). 
4]Specifically Rohnke & Butler’s book in Note 3 above and Priest & Gass’ “Effective leadership in adventure programming.”
5]Senge, P. M. (1990), The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency. The quote is found on page 340.
6]Some of the more prevalent authors on leadership include John C. Maxwell, Kouzes & Posner, Stephen Covey, Ken Blanchard, and Linda Lambert. And, if you take the journey, don’t forget to look at James Burns’ seminal work “Leadership.”
7] Schon, D. A. (1983). The refelctive practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. 

What have you experienced with these educator roles? Leave us a Comment below to start a conversation. 

Keep doing good work! 

Chris Cavert. Ed.D.