In this issue:
Departments:
|
by Karl Rohnke Antagonistic rubric, eh? Kind of sets your teeth on edge right from the get-go, but you're still here so you might as well continue to see what I have to say. Gus Pausz recently wrote (e-mailed actually, who scribes anymore?) and asked if I would like to pen something for the TEAM newsletter as a response to anything I currently found controversial in the field of experiential education. I replied t his e-mail via e-mail (the reply button is the only way I know how to return messages) that I did not currently feel put upon by anything in particular, and that, at this juncture in my working career, I would rather be passive aggro than confrontive controversial. But...I've been sitting here thinking about experiential "things" that have bothered me in the past, so, since I was asked, here's fifty cents worth of response from a nickel's worth of curiosity. The biggest curriculum gripe I've had over the past ten years in the reduction of physical and psychological challenges on high ropes course events, so much so that recent practitioners don't seem to recognize the loss, or correspondingly the potential for gain. The diminished challenge occurs specifically in two areas: ropes course construction and balaying techniques. When was the last time you saw or experienced a Multi-Vine event that required a decent lunge between dangling ropes? And if the event was designed with this high level of challenge in mind, did the well meaning belayer offer abundant static aid during the lunge? Rhetorical responses, please...Hmmm, just as I suspected, and it's worse than I thought. Remember the old ropes course truism, "It's not the performance but the attempt that counts?" Unfortunately, it seems now that completion and success (can't have one without the other, can we?) are the primary goals rather than self concept and esteem gained through participating in a good old fashioned fabricated challenge - includes trial and error failure, of course. How many participants have you seen "helped" across the Cat Walk (horizontal log suspended at height) by a tight belay? I know, I know...some students get tightly belayed across the log the first time, to gain confidence for the second passage. But, tension belaying escalates to the next generation of novice belayers who inevitably apply a really tight belay all the time because "it's safer" or, "that's the way I learned it" or, "they won't make it otherwise." How many people dive from the top of a Pamper Pole and grap the trapeze? Eight or nine out of ten? That's too many. If completion of everything offered is consistently achieved rather than earned, the various attempts become trivialized and success relates to having your ticket punched. This is not the participant's fault, rather the concern of a nervous novice builder or the angst of a full-tension belayer that relates success to completion. I still have people approach me at conferences who relate intense personal experiences on the ropes course from years ago (sometimes, decades), attempting to find descriptive words to explain how much that one challenging experience affected their lives. Being tightly belayed across any high element, with no chance of falling or failing, represents a weak remnant of the potential challenge available. If a struggling student obviously needs immediate success, apply a heavy dose, it's your role as a facilitator to recognize when the need exists. But if completion success becomes regularly anticipated as the result of compassionate belay aid, you are providing a disservice by establishing an unrealistic evaluation of what that person is actually capable of accomplishing. There's more...but I fell better already. |