A Chinese proverb states, "Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I may remember. Involve me and I will understand." The primary objective of adventure programming is to do just that, involve clients in a physically engaging manner so that they come to understand. In this paper, I will present evidence that supports the use of this physically engaging manner as an effective methodology to reduce at-risk behaviors in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) youth by decreasing the likelihood of alienation, fostering resiliency, and countering internalized homophobia.
First, though, a deeper exploration of adventure programming and its goals is warranted. According to the Association of Experiential Education, adventure programming, like all types of experiential learning, is “a philosophy and methodology in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, and clarify values” (AEE, p. 1).
Any form of experiential learning has two critical steps: doing and processing. The doing step is the activity. Common activities for the doing step are hikes, kayaking, initiative games, and ropes courses. In the processing step, participants talk about the experience of doing, with the facilitator helping them to review the activity and generalize the learning to other areas of their lives (Luckner & Nadler, p. 10).
In his groundbreaking work, Kolb presented a model for the experiential learning cycle that expanded beyond this basic doing then processing model. Kolb identifies four components: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Webb, p. 2). In this model, a concrete experience provides an opportunity for reflection, which is then integrated by the participant and abstracted or generalized in a way that can be actively tested in other areas of the individual’s life.
All models for adventure programming, as well as most other types of experiential learning, include a core belief that learning occurs most readily when the participant is “confronted with a balance between stress and comfort” (Webb, p. 3). Through “activities that provide compelling tasks to accomplish” (Priest & Gass, p. 17), adventure programming provides this balance in three inter-related ways. First, adventure programming strives to create an uncertain outcome. Second, adventure programming most often contains a high level of perceived physical, emotional, or social risk. Finally, adventure programming typically occurs outdoors or in an environment unfamiliar to the participant (Coons, p. 1).
Adventure programming and other types of experiential education “are a major strategy for accomplishing holistic development outcomes” (Bernard & Marshall, p. 1). Priest and Gass have cataloged significant affective gains from participation in adventure programming, both intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonal improvements include new confidence in oneself, increased willingness to take risks, improved self-concept, increased logical thinking, and greater reflective thinking (p. 19). Interpersonal improvements include enhanced cooperation, more effective communication, greater trust in others, increased sharing of decision-making, new ways of resolving problems, and enhanced leadership skills (p. 20).
A meta-analysis conducted by Hattie, March, Neill, and Richards reviewed results from 96 studies on adventure programs. These studies had a combined participation of over 12,000 at-risk youth and identified a wide variety of positive outcomes. The most significant outcomes were improvements in self-control, such as increased autonomy, confidence, self-efficacy, self-understanding, decision-making, and assertiveness. Other notable outcomes were increased interpersonal skills, improvements in mathematics and other academic areas involving critical thinking or problem solving, and significant gains in self-esteem (qtd. in Bernard & Marshall, p. 3). Another noteworthy finding, unlike outcomes from most interventions, was that these areas of improvements were maintained and even continued to increase over time (Bernard & Marshall, p. 4).
While outcomes for GLBT youth were not specifically addressed by Hattie’s meta-analysis, it was determined that there were no outcome differences attributable to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or prior academic achievement (Bernard & Marshall, p. 4). As such, the results of Hattie’s meta-analysis support the use of adventure programming as an effective methodology to prevent at-risk behavior with all adolescent populations, including GLBT youth.
GLBT Youth As Inherently At-Risk
Almost no research focusing specifically on the efficacy of adventure programming with GLBT could be found during research for this paper. However, Hattie’s meta-analysis and several other studies report positive results from incorporating adventure programming into both therapeutic and developmental work with at-risk youth. Kallisky defined the term at-risk to include all adolescents who “live in a negative environment and/or lack the skills and values that help them become responsible members of society” (qtd. in Cross, p. 2).
A disproportionate number of at-risk youth are GLBT (Berger, p. 2). GLBT youth are particularly at-risk for suicidal ideation and attempts, parasuicidal behavior, verbal and physical harassment, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, engagement in prostitution or truancy, and declining school performance (Mufioz-Plaza, et al, p. 3; Berger, p. 2). Additionally, the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services has reported that up to forty percent of all youth who experience homelessness identify as GLBT (qtd. in Berger, p. 2).
In response to the stressors noted above, the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated:
The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation…These youth are severely hindered by societal stigmatization and prejudice, limited knowledge of human sexuality, a need for secrecy, a lack of opportunities for open socialization, and limited communication with healthy role models… [This] may lead to isolation, runaway behavior, homelessness, domestic violence, depression, suicide, substance abuse and school or job failure…Pediatricians should be aware of these risks (qtd. in Ryan and Futterman, p. 23).
As this evidence supports, all GLBT youth should be considered inherently at-risk. Further, one can assume that research supporting the efficacy of adventure programming with at-risk adolescents in general can be applied to GLBT youth specifically.
Ripples of Disruption
Understanding how at-risk behavior develops, in all adolescent populations, is key. Bronfenbrenner identified four dimensions of influence upon adolescents: family, school, peers, and work or play (qtd in Cross, p. 2). Subsequent research suggested that alienation, a significant element in at-risk behavior in adolescents, is the result of disruptions in these dimensions. Calabrese stated, “Trouble comes when an adolescent experiences alienation in more than one world at a time, or finds no solace in their other worlds” (qtd. in Cross, p. 2). When an adolescent does experience disruption in one dimension, a ripple effect is likely to occur with negative impacts in the other dimensions.
GLBT youth are likely to confront these negative ripples in all of Bronfenbrenner’s dimensions, especially school. Many schools condone or tolerate homophobia (Owen, p. 84). Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, said, “Anti-LGBT bullying and harassment remain commonplace in America's schools" (GLSEN, p. 1). In fact, a 2005 study conducted by GLSEN found that over 75% of high school students who identified as LGBT regularly heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke." Additionally, over 35% of these students suffered harassment at school due to their sexual orientation; and almost 20% of them had been physically assaulted (GLSEN, p. 1).
School experiences play a particularly important role in determining how adolescents define their place in the larger community (Cross, p. 2). As such, negative experiences such as those reported in the GLSEN study are highly likely to create a negative ripple effect throughout all other dimensions. Since these ripples are frequent for GLBT youth, concerns regarding alienation and the probability of at-risk behaviors are especially heightened for this population.
While Bronfenbrenner identified four dimensions of influence, Dean states that alienation is the result of three factors: powerlessness, or feeling unable to influence one’s own choices; normlessness, or feeling one’s value system is inconsistent with that of society; and isolation, or feeling acute loneliness or separation (qtd. in Cross, p. 2). Dean’s three factors of powerlessness, normlessness, and isolation are exacerbated for nearly all GLBT youth. Mercier and Berger point to the lack of social supports for LGBT youth, again giving particular attention to the school environment, as the cause of isolation for LGBT youth (qtd. in Mufioz-Plaza, et al, p. 4). Ryan and Futterman wrote, “The need for support is particularly critical to avoid isolation when adolescents begin to question their sexual identity” (p. 10). It is at this time that adventure programming would be a particularly effective strategy for this population to decrease alienation, foster resiliency, and counter internalized homophobia.
Use of Adventure Programming To Decrease Alienation In GLBT Youth
Cross conducted a study to determine the effects of adventure programming program on perceptions of alienation and personal control among at-risk adolescents. Cross’ study had two hypotheses: (1) “At-risk adolescents who participate in an outdoor intervention program will demonstrate significantly lower perceptions of alienation [than] their counterparts who receive no such program”; and, (2) “At-risk adolescents who participate in an outdoor intervention program will demonstrate significantly greater perceptions of personal control…as compared to their counterparts who receive no such program” (Cross, p. 3).
Cross’ study included 34 at-risk adolescents. Half the group served as controls, and the other half participated in a five-day intensive rock climbing experience designed to be a typical example of adventure programming. It included the following fundamental components: the participants were placed in a novel setting; a cooperative, caring, and trusting environment was created; unique problem solving opportunities were presented; opportunities for success and accomplishment were provided; and daily opportunities for processing the experience were given (Luckner & Nadler, p. 257).
Both the treatment group and the control group completed pre- and post-tests to measure alienation and perceptions of control. After participation in the rock-climbing program, the experimental group was less alienated and exhibited higher perceptions of control than the study participants who did not participate (Cross, p. 8). Cross’s study included only thirty-four subjects, all of whom attended the same alternative high school, with the majority of the participants being male, Caucasian, and of lower socioeconomic status. Due to the small size and lack of diversity among the participants, the results cannot be considered conclusive. However, the study results do suggest that adventure programming has the potential to positively effect perceptions of alienation in at-risk youth, including GLBT adolescents.
Use of Adventure Programming To Foster Resiliency In GLBT Youth
“Resiliency is the ability to thrive in spite of risk or adversity” (Brendtro & Longhurst, p. 2). In 1955, Werner and Smith began a longitudinal study of nearly 700 children, all born on the island of Kauai, Hawaii and all from families dealing with issues such as chemical dependency, mental illness, and economic difficulties. After following the subjects for thirty-four years, Werner wrote:
Risk factors and stressful environments do not inevitably lead to poor adaptation. It seems clear that, at each stage in an individual’s development from birth to maturity, there is a shifting balance between stressful events that heighten vulnerability and protective factors that enhance resilience (qtd. in Wolin & Wolin, p. 19).
Resilience is a combination of inner strengths and external supports (Brendtro & Longhurst, p. 2). Those external supports can come from within any of Bronfenbrenner’s dimensions. When provided this supportive environment, adolescents are able to develop their own natural resiliencies. However, as previously stated, school is often particularly difficult for GLBT youth. Hyman wrote that the “most dangerous schools are those with negative climates of disrespect among peers and adults” (qtd. in Brendtro & Longhurst, p. 2). When lacking support in any of Bronfenbrenner’s dimensions, adventure programming can provide an effective methodology for fostering resilience.
Fostering resiliency in adolescents has three primary goals. The first goal is assisting the individual to reframe his or her life experiences. Reframing, or “viewing an old story from a new perspective” (Wolin, Desetta & Hefner, p. 4), is derived from basic cognitive-behavioral theory and focuses on the subjective nature of personal stories to uncover alternative, positive themes (Wolin & Wolin, p. 21). The second goal in fostering resiliency is helping the individual to acknowledge untapped survivor’s pride, “the well-deserved feeling of accomplishment that results from persisting in the face of hardship or adversity” (Wolin & Wolin, p. 11). The final goal in fostering resiliency is facilitating the individual to identify current strengths or competencies while developing weaker areas.
Wolin and Wolin have identified seven specific areas of competence exhibited by resilient individuals: insight, independence, relationships, initiative, creativity, humor, and morality. Green conducted a study to examine the effects of adventure programming on the development of these competencies in at-risk youth. For the study, twenty-five minority youth age ten to sixteen participated in a six week ropes course program consisting of one four-hour session each week. A group of over 150 other minority youth served as a control. All subjects were pre- and post-tested. The results from Green’s study indicated that protective factors related to these competencies improved significantly within the treatment group (p. 1).
Green’s study focuses on at-risk low-income minority youth. However, his results suggest that adventure programming delivered to GLBT youth has the potential to provide significant gains in resiliency for this population. Hattie’s meta-analysis supports this conclusion. Bernard and Marshall wrote that adventure programming not only fosters resiliency, but also provides “a powerful prevention strategy” for at-risk youth (p. 1).
Use of Adventure Programming to Counter Internalized Homophobia
All adolescents face the psychosocial challenges of developing identity, autonomy, intimacy, sexuality, and achievement (Steinberg, p. 12). GLBT youth have the additional challenge of learning to manage a stigmatized identity (Ryan & Futterman, p. xii). Based on their own study, Mufioz-Plaza, et al, wrote, “Confronted with their own sense of alienation and confusion, as well as the overwhelmingly negative messages about homosexuality…respondents described their sexual identity formation as a process characterized by varying degrees of denial and acceptance” (p. 2).
Ryan and Futterman stated, “Unlike their heterosexual peers, lesbian and gay youth consolidate identity against a backdrop of social disapproval” (p. 21). In their study of GLBT youth ages 14-17, they found an overwhelming acceptance of negative stereotypes, including beliefs that all gay men were effeminate, all lesbians were masculine, that all homosexuals were unhappy, and that all lesbians hated men (Ryan & Futterman, p. 73).
Common reactions to such internalized homophobia include adjustment problems, impaired psychosocial development, family alienation, inadequate interpersonal relationships, alcohol and drug abuse, depression, suicidal ideation, and sexual acting out (Ryan & Futterman, p. 29). These reactions can be effectively countered through participation in adventure programming.
As stated earlier, learning occurs most readily when an individual is “outside a position of comfort” (Priest & Gass, p. 146). Priest and Gass wrote, “By responding to seemingly insurmountable tasks [found in typical adventure programming], participants often learn to overcome self-imposed perceptions of their capabilities to succeed” (p. 18), such as those created by internalized homophobia.
Through involvement in experiences that move the individual outside a position of comfort, adventure programming provides GLBT youth an opportunity to test their own assumptions and reject those they discover to be faulty. In doing so, adventure programming provides an effective treatment strategy for GLBT youth who need to change behaviors and move beyond self-defined limits.
Discussion
As I have presented in this paper, adventure programming is a process of “learning by doing with reflection’ (Priest and Gass, p. 16). This dynamic process provides participants unique opportunities to try new behaviors, to improve self-esteem, and to see one’s self in ways that move beyond personal or societal expectations (Bradish, p. 92), outcomes that positively impact at-risk participants. GLBT youth face unique social and emotional stressors resulting from a stigmatized identity. These stressors increase their risks for a wide range of physical and mental health concerns (Ryan & Futterman, p. 5). As such, all GLBT youth can be considered inherently at-risk. Studies that support adventure programming as an effective treatment modality for at-risk adolescents can therefore be generalized to GLBT youth.
Adventure programming specifically targeted to GLBT youth provides a safe alternative to the negative environment and experiences encountered at school and within Bronfenbrenner’s other dimensions. By providing powerful learning experiences that move participants beyond their personal positions of comfort, adventure programming presents opportunities to develop beneficial resiliencies, decrease the likelihood of alienation, and counter internalized homophobia. As such, adventure programming can be considered an effective methodology for use with GLBT youth.
Works Cited
Association for Experiential Education. What Is Experiential Education?. 21 January 2007
Beard, C. & Gross, J. Experiential Learning: A Best Practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 2006.
Berger, C. “What becomes of at-risk gay youth?” Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide. November/December 2005: 24-27. ProQuest. 8 February 2007
Bernard, B. & Marshall, K. Adventure Education: Making A Lasting Difference. 8 February 2007
Bradish, C. “Therapeutic programming for gay and lesbian youth: How experiential education can support an at-risk population.” Journal of Experiential Education. Aug. 1995: 91-94.
Brendtro, L. & Longhurst, J. “The resilient brain.” Reclaiming Children and Youth. Spring 2005: 52-60. ProQuest. 8 February 2007
Coons, V. “Advantages of adventure therapy for adolescents.” Counselor. April 2004: 42-44. ProQuest. 25 February 2007
Cross, R. “The effects of an adventure education program on perceptions of alienation and personal control among at-risk adolescents.” Journal of Experiential Education. Spring 2002: 247-254. ProQuest. 22 January 2007
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. GLSEN's 2005 National School Climate
Survey Sheds New Light on Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Students. 25 February 2007
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1997.
Mufioz-Plaza, C., et al. “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students: Perceived
social support in the high school environment.” High School Journal. April/May 2002: 52-64. ProQuest. 8 December 2007
Owens, Jr., R. Queer Kids. New York: Haworth Press, 1998.
Priest, S. & Gross, M. Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
Ryan, C. & Futterman, D. Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Webb, L. “Learning by doing.” Training Journal. March 2006: 36-41. ProQuest. 11 February 2007
Wolin, S. & Wolin, S. Resilient Self, The. New York: Random House, 1993.
Wolin, S., Desetta, A. & Hefner, K. Leader’s Guide to the Struggle to Be Strong, The. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, 2000.
