In all forms of experiential education, transfer of learning is considered a vital part of the process. Necessary for fostering change, this transfer involves the integration of learning from the experience into the participant’s life (Priest & Gass), in order to allow for generalizing that experience to daily events. In other words, in clinical settings transfer of learning answers the question, “What does this have to do with recovery?”
To assure transfer of learning occurs, processing is an essential component of all experiential education programs (Luckner & Nadler, p. 8). In their book, The Processing Pinnacle, Simpson, Miller and Bocher identify a variety of goals when processing. I believe that most important of these in a clinical setting are assuring participants understand the lessons of the experience, analyzing and synthesizing the action, helping give the experience permanence, and transferring the learning to daily life (p. 19).
To help assure these goals are met, the authors present a model they call “the processing pinnacle,” an approach they initially present as a continuum and then later transform into a mountain. At one end is facilitator-centered processing with the leader retaining complete control of the processing. At the other end of the continuum is participant-centered processing, with all processing tasks relinquished by the leader (p. 59).
The authors identified four specific points along this continuum: facilitator frontloading, traditional question and answer, participant-directed processing, and independent reflection.
Facilitator Frontloading
Facilitator front-loading is farthest to the facilitator-centered side of the continuum. In this approach, the leader explicitly states the purpose of the activity before it even takes place, spelling out exactly what will be experienced and learned. When frontloading occurs, reflection generally happens throughout the activity, either during pauses for discussion or as the activity proceeds (p. 59).
As I initially read this book, facilitator frontloading seemed heavy-handed to me, and I didn’t think it fit at all with my personal facilitator style. However, I do frequently use metaphors as a way to frontload an activity, and that use often shapes the experience for the participants. In addition, I always do a lot of in-the-moment processing.
For example, I sometimes frame Trolleys, a common experiential activity, with recovery metaphors, giving participants the task of crossing the Sea of Relapse using the skills they have learned in treatment (the trolleys themselves) and arriving at the finish line, Long-Term Sobriety.
To me, this type of metaphor-rich framing isn’t necessarily as heavy handed as the authors’ definition initially seems. However, it certainly fulfills their definition. In discussing the use of metaphor in frontloading, they state, “The more ways and more times that a metaphor gets linked to everyday life, the more effective it will be” (p. 88). For example, during Trolleys-As-Recovery, I encourage participants to take things “one step at a time” and to not “future-trip” about getting to the end.
In some settings, this sort of predetermined shaping of the activity could clearly limit outcomes. However, when frontloading isn’t heavy-handed, it seems to me that this processing approach can be extremely appropriate within a clinical context where a specific goal has usually been determined in advance. Indeed, moving participants toward a specific goal is most often the point for doing an activity.
Traditional Q & A
The next on the continuum is traditional question and answer, in which the facilitator leads a discussion following the activity. This discussion includes input from both the facilitator and the participants, but is leader-driven. The leader chooses the questions, calls on specific participants, and guides the discussion in a predetermined direction (Simpson, Miller & Bocher, p. 60).
The authors state that this is the most common of all processing styles, but in clinical settings I attempt to avoid this traditional question and answer approach entirely. I’ve found that with youth in treatment, it is usually most effective to provide some structure to the processing. However, I want to do this in a way that isn’t facilitator-oriented. In my experience, participant-directed processing approaches work well for balancing these seemly contradictory goals.
Participant-Directed Processing
This third point on the continuum involves processing where “the direction of the discussion and reflection is determined by the participants, not the facilitator” (Simpson, Miller & Bocher, 2006, p. 61). One example of this approach is processing cards.
About a two year ago, I started using Chiji Processing Cards, a deck of 48 cards with different images on them such as a lighthouse, a compass, and a piece of shattered pottery. The most typical way to use these cards as a processing tool is to spread them out and ask participants to “pick a card that represents your role in the group today” or a similar prompt. I have found these cards to be a powerful processing tool, encouraging even the most reluctant participants to speak.
Teens in treatment can sometimes be challenging to get talking, and it seems to me that this approach helps that to happen. As such, I use a lot of other participant-directed and active processing approaches. I have another post on this blog -- Talking Despite Themselves -- that addresses this topic in more detail.
Independent Reflection
The final point on the processing continuum, independent reflection, is what the authors called “processing in the intentional absence of formal processing” (p. 60). In Outward Bound, this approach is common and frequently referred to as “letting the mountain speak for itself.” I feel there may be times, places, and participant populations were this approach is appropriate. However, it seems to me that not providing a formal processing opportunity of some type in a clinical setting would be therapeutically inappropriate.
Time for transfer of learning is a necessary part of the therapeutic process, and I believe some formal processing should always occur. However, authors wrote, “Even though it might be used rarely, [independent processing] is the appropriate processing methodology when a particular set of conditions has been met” (p. 125). They define these conditions as an appropriate setting, that participants have a strong commitment to the experience, that participants have the requisite knowledge to understand the significance of an experience, and that the group has prior training in processing.
I suppose that if these four conditions were all present in the entire participant population, it might be appropriate to have the group sit quietly on a mountain top watching a sunset and consider that a processing experience. Even then, though, the counselor in me would follow up the independent reflection time with a short group process of it.
Climbing the Mountain
I see processing as an important part of experiential learning. In fact, it may be the most important part, since it provides participants the opportunity to develop awareness, identify thinking patterns, and practice mindfulness—all skills I believe essential for recovery. In a clinical setting, it seems to me that the activity is often less important than the processing opportunities it provides. In other words, climbing a mountain is not about reaching the pinnacle, but about what happens along the way.
Early in the book, the authors wrote, “According to Chinese Tao thinking, action and reflection cannot exist without each other” (p. 18). I found this book interesting and practical in many ways, providing a comprehensive system for viewing various processing methodologies. Independent reflection is one extreme end of a spectrum, and fostering movement toward independent processing has obvious value. After all, a client will eventually no longer be a client, and the skills learned in a clinical context need to transfer to life.
That said, the authors failed to convince me that achieving independent reflection should be the ultimate goal of processing, at least within a clinical context. Getting to the pinnacle is not what’s important in a learning experience. Working toward the pinnacle is. Without a formal processing experience of some sort, it seems to me that this dialectic of action and reflection will not be assured, and transfer of learning may not occur.
Work Cited
Luckner, J., and Nadler, R. (1997). Processing the Experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Priest, S., and Gross, M. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Simpson, S., Miller, D., and Bocher, B. (2006). The Processing Pinnacle. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood’n’Barnes.
