Content uploaded by Michael Gass
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Gass on Jun 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Clinical Supervision in
Adventure Therapy: Enhancing
the Field Through an Active
Experiential Model
Michael A. Gass and H. L. “Lee” Gillis
Supervision of therapeutic practice is one of the central professional ele-
ments of mental health practitioners. Supervision provides growth for ther-
apists in their respective professional fields, more effective therapy for
clients, and some measure of ethical protection for the welfare of clients
and the public at large. However, therapists who utilize adventure therapy
are often at a loss for experiential supervision models that value the active
approach they use with their clients. The ENHANCES supervision model
was developed to provide experiential adventure therapists with a contem-
porary model of supervision that removes the limitations of more traditional
supervisory practices. Two case presentations illustrating the ENHANCES
model are included in this article.
Keywords: Adventure Therapy Supervision
Michael A. Gass is a Professor and Coordinator of Outdoor Education at the
University of New Hampshire, Durham, USA. E-mail: mgass@unh.edu
H. L. “Lee” Gillis is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychological
Science at Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, USA.
E-mail: lee.gillis@gcsu.edu
10.5193/JEE.33.1.72
pp. 72–89 Journal of Experiential Education • 2010, Volume 33, No. 1
Supervision of therapeutic practice is one of the central professional
elements of mental health practitioners (Brown & Lent, 2000;
Falender & Shafranske, 2004). Supervision provides growth for ther-
apists in their respective professional fields, more effective therapy for
clients, and some measure of ethical protection for the welfare of clients
and the public at large (Freitas, 2002). However, therapists who utilize
adventure therapy are often at a loss for experiential supervision models
that value the active approach they use with their clients. The purpose of
this article is to offer such a model.
Overview of Clinical Supervision
The manner in which supervision assists therapists is often
dependent on the particular needs of therapists as well as clients. One
example of their differing needs can be seen in the model advanced by
Hawkins and Shohet (1991). Here the foci of supervision extend across
six connected phases of a continuum ranging from: (a) reflection of the
content of the therapy session, (b) exploration of the strategies and inter-
ventions attempted with clients, (c) exploration of the therapy process and
client-therapist relationship, (d) focus on the therapist’s counter-transfer-
ence, (e) examination of the mirror or parallel processes of the supervisor-
therapist reality to the therapist-client reality, and (f) focus on the
supervisor counter-transference.
Although supervision models for traditional therapeutic approaches
have existed since the 1920s (Leddick & Bernard, 1980; Stoltenberg &
Delworth, 1987), most of these approaches have relied on one of two dis-
tinct models: (a) psychotherapy models and (b) developmental models
(Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). In psychotherapy models, supervisors rely
on a personal theory of counseling or psychotherapy as the basis for con-
ducting clinical supervision. For instance, a specific psychotherapy model
might be used by supervisors who incorporate their world view as cogni-
tive behaviorists into their supervision style. These supervisors would
probably focus on how the supervisee’s thoughts about the client are
related to his or her behaviors when in session.
In developmental models, the focus centers on having the therapist
grow with the supervisor through various stages of cognitive maturity. The
development of the supervisor-supervisee relationship over time would
probably focus on the supervisee’s gains in knowledge of psychotherapy.
Developmental models focus more on the process of growth as a therapist
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 73
and are generally atheoretical with regard to content. As growth occurrs
in these models, supervision changes through different levels to accom-
modate this growth. Examples of growth might include movement from
dependency to autonomy, unawareness to awareness, or simple to more
complex levels of interventions.
Traditional models of supervision experienced during graduate
training or in postgraduate training may prove ineffective for adventure
therapists, particularly when examining areas of supervision pertaining
to therapist-supervisor interactions. The need for specific and conscious
“direction” regarding client-therapist interaction may be met by traditional
psychotherapy and developmental model structures, but information
regarding more resistant and unconscious patterns may not be acquired
because of the venues where adventure therapy is experienced. Supervi-
sion using more traditional “talk only” methods also may not address the
more active, experiential needs of adventure therapists.
Given its experiential basis, adventure therapy supervision would
benefit from a model of supervision augmented by active, experiential
methods. In this type of supervision experience, the supervisor and ther-
apist literally “leave their chairs” to
experientially
enhance
the supervisory
process toward beneficial ends. By utilizing active experiences to parallel
and highlight the supervision process, the supervisory experience is
“walked” and not just “talked.” This process reaches the same six foci of su-
pervision of the Hawkins and Shohet (1991) model, but seeks to do this in
a more informative and beneficial manner.
The purpose of this article is to present a model of experiential
supervision that combines the objectives of traditional supervision expe-
riences with the critical information obtained through an experiential par-
allel process. Toward this end, we have adapted the similar structure of the
CHANGES model of assessment (Gass & Gillis, 1995a) into a model of
supervision using the acronym ENHANCES. The CHANGES model is a field-
tested, theoretical framework meant to guide therapists in their ability to:
(1) capitalize on the strengths of adventure experiences as assessment,
(2) enhance existing intuitive processes, (3) enable professionals to proac-
tively analyze, predict, and generalize assessment concepts to assist with
client interventions, (4) assess one specific client or a client group comprised
of multiple members, and (5) create congruence between a theoretical frame-
work and actual field conditions with clients. (pp. 34–35)
To illustrate the ENHANCES structural model’s use in the field, two
supervision case examples are included in this article. Both of these case
studies, as well as additional ones using the ENHANCES model, can be
found online at: http://kinestheticmetaphors.com/ENHANCES.html.
74 Journal of Experiential Education
Parallel Process: What Is It?
Key to Hawkins and Shohet’s (1991) six-phase model are the con-
cepts of parallel process and isomorphism. The concept of parallel
process has some basis in psychodynamic therapeutic approaches (e.g.,
transference and counter-transference), but it also extends theoretically
with the systemic notion of isomorphism (Gass, 1993). The way isomor-
phism is viewed in supervision literature concerns the parallels co-existing
in both (a) the client-therapist relationship and (b) the therapist
-supervisor
relationship.
For example, there may be times when therapists can be very con-
fused as to how to proceed with their clients. Perhaps the issues being
presented by a client are new to the therapist, or previous successful meth-
ods of working with similar clients are not proving to be successful. In
such situations, therapists may not be conscious about bringing this con-
fusion into the supervision session. The therapist may then confuse the
supervisor, playing out the same “process pattern” the client presents in
therapy. Thus the client-therapist relationship finds itself isomorphic with
the therapist-supervisor relationship.
Parallel process or isomorphism can also operate in reverse. Fol-
lowing the same circular pattern yet in the opposite direction, therapists
can become very clear through supervision on how to proceed in the ther-
apy session and then be able to model that clarity with their clients who,
in turn, become clear on what action they should take in their practice.
Experience: The Primary Vehicle for Change
Experiential therapists actively design and frame activities around
critical issues for clients. The activities are typically focused on the
development of specific treatment outcomes. Experiential therapists gen-
erally do not serve as the central vehicle of functional change; instead they
see the therapeutic experience as being the central medium for orches-
trating change. This dynamic often enables therapists to take on a more
“mobile” role for supporting, joining, or confronting clients in the
co-construction of change processes. Combined with the informal setting
of adventure experiences, the dynamics of experiential approaches can
remove many barriers limiting interaction. While still maintaining clear
and appropriate boundaries, experiential therapists can often become
more approachable and achieve greater interaction with clients (Gass,
1993; Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002). How might this same stance play
out in experiential therapy supervision using adventure experiences as
the medium? One way to conceptualize this is through the enhancement
of the CHANGES model.
The CHANGES model (Gass & Gillis, 1995a) is organized into inter-
active steps designed to acquire information for developing functional
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 75
client change. There are seven steps that comprise the acronym
CHANGES: Context, Hypotheses, Action, Novelty, Generating, Evaluation,
and Solutions.
Context. In preparing for the group experience, the therapist gathers
all the information he or she can about the clients. Why has the client
group entered into this experience? How long will they be involved? What
are their stated goals as a group and as individuals?
Hypotheses. After gathering this assessment information, the
adventure therapist establishes hypotheses about what behavior(s) might
be expected from the group. These hypotheses are “tested” through
engagement in carefully designed adventure experiences.
Action. Much of the material used for constructing change is
obtained from the actions of group members as they involve themselves in
adventure experiences. Kimball (1983) and Creal and Florio (1986) relate
this process to the psychological concept of “projection.” Based on this
premise, group members project a clear representation of their behavior
patterns, personalities, structure, and interpretation onto the adventure
activities because they are usually unfamiliar with what is being asked of
them in the experience.
Novelty. As previously noted, actions that are unfamiliar or new to
the group cause group members to struggle with the spontaneity of an
adventure experience. As a result, group members do not always know
how they are expected to act, and this prevents them from hiding behind
a false or “social” self, leading them to show their true behaviors, which
in turn provides additional information to the group therapist.
Generating. By careful observation of the group members’ responses
to a multitude of “actions,” the skilled adventure therapist identifies life-
long behavior patterns, dysfunctional ways of coping with stress, intel-
lectual processes, conflicts, needs, and emotional responsiveness. When
properly observed, recorded, and articulated, this data can be the basis for
therapeutic goals (Kimball, 1983).
Evaluation. When information has been generated from observations
of the group’s behaviors, it can be compared with working hypotheses
once again. Do group actions fit the working hypotheses? Are these
hypotheses supported or refuted? What new knowledge now exists to
revisit action, novelty, and generating in the next experience?
Solutions. Finally, and most importantly, when the evaluation pro-
vides a clear picture of the group’s issues, it leads toward solutions of
those issues. Action steps at this time generally evolve by clients identi-
fying: (a) “exceptions” to problems (i.e., times when the problem behav-
ior does not occur); (b) doing “more” of what is working for the client; and
76 Journal of Experiential Education
(c) doing something “different” when things aren’t working for the client
(Gass & Gillis, 1995b). Integrating and interpreting information gathered in
previous steps helps in decision-making about how to construct potential
solutions to the groups’ concerns.
The CHANGES model provides one useful way to acquire and
organize information to systemically structure a change experience. One pow-
erful technique for accessing the strength of adventure experiences is when
group members are using metacommunication patterns in their dialogue.
Key to the model’s process is the concept of metacommunication,
which has been eloquently outlined by such therapeutic pioneers as
Bateson (1972), de Shazer (1982), Waltzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson
(1967), and Waltzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974). Metacommunica-
tion processes can provide a clear understanding of how adventure
experiences heighten therapeutic effectiveness through parallel pro-
cessing. For example, in the group members’ reality, there are really two
meanings to words and their interpretations when used in the adventure
experience: one for the reality of the adventure experience paralleled
with the one for the group members’ real-world reality. The joining of
these two realities can often be heard and seen in client expression and
behavior. Such metacommunication provides an important link for group
members reaching deep and valuable meaning in adventure experiences
(e.g., Gass, 1993; Gass & Gillis, 1998).
ENHANCES: The Model
ENHANCES is presented as a supervision model that parallels the
CHANGES model of assessment based on the six elements proposed by
Hawkins and Shohet (1991). As with the CHANGES assessment model, the
ENHANCES supervision model possesses connected elements that are
sequential in nature. The ENHANCES acronym stands for Engage, New
Hypotheses, Action that is Novel, Co-create, and Evaluate for Solutions.
Engage. In the Engagement phase, the supervisor joins with the ther-
apist and focuses on three distinct areas: technical skills, personal growth,
and an atmosphere promoting the courage to be imperfect. Among the
technical skills are: (a) perceptual skills, (b) conceptual skills, (c) inter-
vention skills, and (d) relationship skills. Perceptual skills allow the ther-
apist to see specific patterns and external interactions occurring in
therapy. Conceptual skills allow the therapist to access various therapeu-
tic models to benefit the client. Intervention skills include the capability
of the therapist to actually design and deliver a therapeutic process for
assisting clients to change. Relationship skills involve the establishment
and maintenance of a connection to the client so beneficial information or
techniques can be received in an atmosphere where they can be utilized
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 77
effectively. The second area of engagement where the supervisor guides
the therapist is through personal growth. Supervisors accomplish this by
supporting therapists in their knowledge of themselves and in their con-
fidence to operate as therapists, as well as in the building of relationships
and rapport with their clients. Finally, the third area of engagement fosters
the attitude of “failing forward”—creating an environment where thera-
pists have the courage to be imperfect and are encouraged to try new and
novel approaches with their clients.
New Hypotheses. The supervisor listens to the hypotheses the ther-
apist has developed about his or her conceptualization of the client. These
hypotheses were built through the joining stage of engagement. The
supervisor explores with the therapist new hypotheses or alternate ways of
viewing a client’s words, interpretations, and behaviors. The manner in
which the supervisor helps generate these new hypotheses is the crux of
the ENHANCES model. It is where the supervisor and the therapist experi-
ence and reflect on the possibilities for enhancing the therapeutic process.
Action that is Novel. The supervisor uses action or activities in the
session that may not be new to the therapist, but in the context of super-
vision, they are novel in that they help the therapist see the client’s issues
or his or her own issues in new ways. For example, in the co-constructing
dialogue between therapist and supervisor about the confusion and over-
whelming reality of juggling multiple issues facing a client, the supervi-
sor may explore this issue with the therapist through a parallel process of
juggling a confusing and overwhelming number of Nerf balls that need to
be kept up in the air and to be passed between them. The shared action of
passing these balls provides informing sources of directed experience and
informed reflection for invaluable insight into the supervision process.
Co-create. From the shared action comes a co-created plan to be car-
ried out in the therapy session. This plan may or may not involve the
actions used in the previous stage. The actions used in supervision will
often spark creative juices to co-create a novel way of presenting an
activity so that the experience can “speak” to the client.
Evaluate for Solutions. The co-created action is reviewed and eval-
uated for its potential effectiveness with the client. Part of the evaluation
is the level to which the co-created action will embrace a solution focus
and utilize skills the therapist and client possess (Knight, 2006; Lowe &
Guy, 1996).
Logistics of the ENHANCES Model
The ENHANCES model can work in a variety of supervision struc-
tures (e.g., a 1:1 therapist-and-supervisor-only model), but it can be further
78 Journal of Experiential Education
enhanced by a group supervision process aided by a reflecting team. The
reflecting team is not a new concept in supervision. Cox, Banez, and
Hawley (2003), Merl (1995), and Paré (1999) all spoke to the value of a
reflecting
team in training and supervision of clinicians. Schön (1983,
1987) wrote extensively on the value of being a reflective practitioner in
educational settings. In the ENHANCES model, the reflecting team
process seeks multiple perspectives from other therapists as well as from
the supervisor to inform the therapist/supervisee. The following steps are
used to implement the ENHANCES model in this reflecting-team-
enhanced process:
1. The supervisor interviews one therapist in the center of a circle,
with four reflecting team members observing from an encircling
distance of 5–10 feet.
2. After three-fourths of the interview, the supervisor and therapist
move out of the circle and only listen to the conversation of the
reflecting team. The reflecting team moves into the center of the
circle to discuss: (a) what additional information they desire from
the supervisee (e.g., more context for creating activities) and
(b) what activities come to mind that have isomorphic connec-
tions to what is being discussed.
3. The supervisor and therapist again change places with the
reflecting team and discuss what they have heard from the
reflecting team.
4. A novel action generated by the supervisor, therapist, or reflecting
team may surface in which the supervisee and supervisor engage.
5. The supervisor, the therapist, and the reflecting team evaluate the
action for solutions.
Two case presentations following this implementation of the
ENHANCES model are presented to illustrate this process. Both of these
case presentations are available online, as well as additional video case
studies not included in this article. To view the videos, go to
http://kinestheticmetaphors.com/ENHANCES.html. In keeping with
current therapeutic ethical guidelines, participants gave written permis-
sion to be included in these videos to benefit the profession. Care was also
taken to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the clients dis-
cussed in the case presentations.
Case Example 1: Who’s in Control? (2006)
Background information. Supervisee (Joanne) is a child and adoles-
cent clinician who conducts therapy in an office setting. She sees indi-
viduals and families for therapy.
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 79
Case presentation. Joanne is seeing a 16-year-old female (“Sara”)
and her family for issues associated with anorexia. Sara was recently dis-
charged from an eating disorder hospital to address what was seen as more
pressing family issues. Sara is uncommunicative in therapy.
One of the most pressing issues in therapy is that of control with
Sara’s mother (“Mary”). This control issue is especially evident in Mary’s
monitoring of Sara’s caloric intake. In order to achieve proper nutritional
needs, Sara drinks 10 cans of Boost Plus daily. (Boost Plus is a nutrient-rich
weight-gain supplement.) Mary needs to remind Sara to drink the Boost,
and she stands over her when she drinks it. Mary feels very overwhelmed
at these times, becoming emotional and breaking down into tears.
As the therapist, Joanne finds herself becoming very impatient with
Mary and wanting to “rush in and address control issues.” This dynamic
further overwhelms Mary in therapy. Joanne sees Mary and Sara more suc-
cessfully on an individual basis than together; when seen jointly Sara
rarely speaks, and when she does speak, Mary becomes easily over-
whelmed. Joanne has seen the family for four sessions so far.
Joanne wants to further explore control issues and increase her abil-
ity to meet Mary where “she is at.” Mary has become resistant to receiv-
ing input or feedback on how to control Sara. It is hard for Mary to talk
with Joanne about anorexia; Mary often becomes overwhelmed and tear-
ful in these discussions. The supervisor (“Steve”) presented the metaphor
of Mary having a full “emotional bucket,” and Joanne joined in, agreed
with, and confirmed this assessment. She stated that Mary’s “bucket” is
already full when she arrives for therapy, and entering Joanne’s office adds
the two or three drops necessary to overfill her bucket (i.e., overwhelm
her into tears).
Reflecting team’s comments. The four reflecting team members said
they’d like to hear more about other family members and their roles in the
family, family dynamics, why the daughter was released out of the hospi-
tal to address critical family issues, family strengths, the family’s ideas for
what would lead to a better transition, and why Sara and Mary were so
often seen separately during therapy. Potential experiential activities that
were suggested included ones involving increased communication
between Sara and Mary, metaphors involving a small stream running next
to the clinic, control issues, and mirroring/connection activities between
Mary and Sara.
Reactions to reflecting team’s comments. In thinking about the
reflecting team’s comments, Joanne responded that no father was present
but there was an older brother who possessed a very conflicted and dys-
functional relationship with his mother. The current treatment was seen
as inappropriate, as Sarah needed to work on family issues. Family
80 Journal of Experiential Education
engagement activities were seen by Joanne as a possible way to restructure
the dyadic relationship in a healthier manner.
Moving out of the chair. Steve then asked Joanne to take a blank
piece of 8.5 x 11 inch paper and write down an inventory of all the ideas
presented—her own, ones co-constructed from her dialogue with the
supervisor, and ones offered from the reflecting team. While doing this,
Steve collected a water bottle, a pitcher full of water, and an 8-ounce plas-
tic cup from the room.
Joanne wrote down a long (overwhelming) list of eight or more ideas.
Steve stated that with all the things they have “to do,” and for every idea
that she could handle, she needed to pour an appropriate amount of water
from the water pitcher or bottle into the cup to represent each idea. Steve
offered that Joanne had to determine how much emphasis she wanted to
place on an idea by pouring a corresponding amount of water into the cup
(i.e., how important each strategy is for this family at this particular time
should match the amount of water Joanne poured into the cup).
Steve then informed Joanne that after she accomplished this task,
they would place the cup on top of the paper, jointly carry it by holding
the four corners of the paper, and then deposit the water into a large bucket
in the corner of the seminar room that could hold the water (see Gass,
1997, for another activity description related to family systems). The
supervisor and supervisee needed to handle and control this task without
spilling any water (“becoming overwhelmed”), or they would have to
begin the process again. Steve reminded/punctuated to Joanne that it was
her judgment as to how much water/ideas they could handle and how
they would successfully implement a plan to make it to the intended
bucket. Joanne asked who would do the pouring, and Steve told her she
would do everything and he was there to facilitate her efforts.
Filling the cup more than halfway full, Joanne then verbally identi-
fied the need to “maintain a safe and equitable space” as her most
important task to implement with this family (“the only thing I really need
to do”). She then added “drops of focusing on control dynamics.” She
mentioned that although the other ideas were great ones, they might com-
promise these current primary needs because adding anything more into
the existing treatment plan might make things too overwhelming.
Joanne then guided Steve in assisting her to take the cup of water
placed in the center of the paper to the large bucket. Steve asked Joanne
how she thought she was doing, and she said, “Very well.” They success-
fully completed the task without spilling any water.
Wrap up. Steve stopped the scenario, stating that if he had more
time, he would complete the process of using multiple trips from the water
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 81
pitcher to the large bucket until all the issues were addressed. Inclusion
of the discussion of isomorphic areas would be addressed, along with the
application of context to Joanne’s office (e.g., instead of using a bucket for
a depository container, deposit the water/issues into the stream running
next to Joanne’s office).
Case Example 2: Restructuring the Family’s Supportive Structure (2007)
Background information. Supervisee (Tiffany) is a clinician for a
secondary intervention unit supporting a primary-care treatment organi-
zation that provides wraparound/step-down services for adolescents and
their families. She runs three to four groups a week and also works with
families. She has seen this particular family for 10 sessions, with each ses-
sion running two hours in length. Results have been mixed.
Case presentation. The identified client (“Mike”) is a 16-year-old
adolescent who has been suspended from school due to acts of unre-
strained/acting-out behavior, violence, and some drug use. As part of his
treatment plan, Tiffany has been seeing the family as adjunctive support
to address these behaviors and to assist the mother in her parenting
efforts. The family consists of a single mom and four children—two boys
(ages 16 and 17) and two girls (ages 10 and 11). The older son is academ-
ically and athletically successful, and when problems occur, he is embar-
rassed not only by his brother’s behavior but also by his family. In
incidents where the mother (“Wendy”) focuses her attention on Mike and
is somewhat successful, his siblings become reactionary and often sabo-
tage Wendy’s efforts to support and guide Mike. Wendy is much more care-
taking and supportive in her parenting style with the two girls in the
family than she is with the two older boys.
In the course of these 10 sessions, the family has done several
experiential activities and has had mixed results. During a trust activity
(the Mohawk/Tomahawk walk), the family as a whole did quite well by
helping and supporting one another. Other positive behaviors included
honesty, authentic communication, and sensitivity to what everyone in
the family needed (especially Mike). Negative issues included some chal-
lenging of Wendy’s directions and struggling—and subsequent sabotag-
ing—by Mike’s older brother.
Reflecting team’s comments. The four reflecting team members said
they’d like to hear more about Mike’s problems and why Tiffany was hav-
ing such a difficult time in her role as the therapist. They also wished to
explore issues surrounding what Mike does outside of the home to be suc-
cessful, the struggles between Mike and his brother, and the potential sym-
bolic meaning of Mike’s language with Wendy (e.g., “chillin’”) that
activates her in a negative manner. The team saw Mike as often “running”
82 Journal of Experiential Education
the family with his behavior and Wendy as being stuck in a sort of
“survivalist mode” when having to parent. They wondered if Wendy could
change Mike’s behavior from wanting to “run the family” to supporting the
family. They also wondered if Mike’s sensitivity could be used in a more
positive manner.
As far as potential future experiential activities Tiffany might wish
to offer to the family, they provided the following possibilities: (a) an
activity that has the brothers doing something together where they both
need each other in order to be successful; (b) a family “whale watch”/bal-
ance beam challenge, where family members would need to clearly com-
municate and work together to achieve the activity’s common objective; (c)
the “all aboard” activity that would bring everyone together in a cooper-
ative manner; and (d) “win-win” activities.
Reactions to reflecting team’s comments. In responding to the re-
flecting team, Tiffany said a number of the suggested collaborative activ-
ities had already been done. As far as impulsivity, Mike chooses when to
be compulsive and when not to be; he’s very intelligent. Tiffany enjoys
working with Mike and the family, and she has been quite solution-
focused with their work. She has run into difficulties when problems be-
come “saturated.” For now, Wendy has quit her job to help Mike during
these difficult times. Wendy described the existing situation as “hopeless”
and “I don’t know where to go, what to do, or how to make things better.”
Wendy was asked if Mike had any dreams or thoughts for the future.
Wendy replied that Mike wanted to be away from home and spend time
with his girlfriend. Wendy was asked to clarify Mike’s ability to be sup-
portive. Wendy said that her son struggles when he is asked to be sup-
portive, and when he seeks guidance, he uses a demanding tone.
Moving out of the chair. The supervisor (“Ron”) asked Tiffany if she
had done some previous trust activities with the family. Tiffany replied yes
but that there could be more room to work with the family on these is-
sues. They did some blindfold activities that went well, but Wendy strug-
gled in this role, primarily with issues of communication and with being
blindfolded in the context of the family. The supervisor asked Tiffany
about situations where Wendy was asked to work directly with Mike.
Tiffany said that during this time the rest of the family members became
“shut off” in their interactions with Wendy.
As Tiffany provided an example of this, the supervisor asked one of
the training group members to serve as a daughter having a conversation
with Wendy. Tiffany described how, when Wendy and Mike are interact-
ing, the daughter becomes reactive. Based on this information, Ron
sculpted the group into a trust lean formation, where he served as Mike,
leaning back and being directed by Tiffany, who was serving as the mom.
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 83
The “daughter” was then directed to grab a side belt loop and tug on
Tiffany/mom when the daughter felt as if she was not receiving appropri-
ate attention from Tiffany/mom. Ron informed Tiffany that he would be
working hard to “trip her up” and make things difficult for her, using a
manner similar to Mike’s when he makes things difficult for Wendy. Ron
also asked Tiffany to describe what language Wendy uses with Mike that
is successful when directing him, and he further asked Tiffany to use this
type of language (e.g., language that ties into the positive use of his sensi-
tivity) when directing/guiding him through the successful resolution of
the activity.
After this language pattern was established, Ron not only directed
the team member serving as the daughter to pull on one belt loop for
attention but also enlisted the aid of two more team members to serve as
Mike’s other brother and sister and to act in a similar manner (i.e., pull on
another belt loop when mom/Tiffany was interacting with Mike but not
giving them the attention they needed).
Acknowledging Tiffany’s past successes with the trust lean, Ron
increased the intensity of the activity by moving farther away from Tiffany
before beginning the trust lean process. In a critical moment of insight,
Tiffany asked to restructure the family, particularly redirecting the sib-
lings to move from a confrontational position (i.e., tugging at her to
receive attention) to a more collaborative one (i.e., restructuring and redi-
recting the other children to “get in line” with her to make the family more
functional). Tiffany also asked Mike/the supervisor to change his language
to recognize the fact that family members will be adjusting their behavior
to be more functional. The family successfully negotiated this process in
the new structure and with new language (e.g., a trust circle structure).
Wrap up. For the sake of time, Ron stopped the scenario. To wrap up,
he asked for Tiffany’s opinion of the training experience. She said it was
really good, and she highlighted a time when as mom she could be in
charge of the family in such a structure and could find her voice in a con-
structive manner.
Conclusion
Therapeutic supervision continues to be a primary method of
insuring the delivery of high-quality mental health practices. As previ-
ously stated, supervision provides growth for therapists in their practice,
more effective therapy for clients, and some measure of ethical protection
for the welfare of clients and the public at large (Freitas, 2002). Adven-
ture therapy is an experiential therapeutic process enriched by both direct
client experience and informing reflective processes. In an effort to pro-
vide effective supervision of adventure therapy processes, “talk only”
supervision models may be limited. ENHANCES was developed to solve
84 Journal of Experiential Education
this problem. It provides adventure therapists with an experiential model
of supervision that matches their methods and removes the limitations of
traditional methods while still addressing the elements of supervision
identified by Hawkins and Shohet (1991). As therapeutic agency person-
nel and mental health practitioners have incorporated the ENHANCES
supervision model into actual practice over the past decade, four recom-
mendations and guidelines have emerged.
Get Out of the Chair
One of the most commonly reported failures of implementing the
ENHANCES model has come when the supervisor and therapist remain in
their chairs and talk about activities that might work for the therapist and
her or his client. Dialoguing about discrete elements and client problems
to excessive ends has proven to be less productive and influential than
engaging in an activity that tends to lead to a solution. Although there is
a need to be informed about the “problem,” it has been reported repeatedly
by a variety of professionals that the strength and informing elements of
the ENHANCES supervision model come from the associated activities.
Possibly the easiest path for a supervisor to take in accomplishing
this task is to listen to the supervisee’s language and turn the verbs into
gerunds (e.g., “control” to “controlling,” “support” to “supporting”). Use
these transformed gerunds as clues for possible isomorphs that might
“play out” into novel actions.
Go Slowly, Don’t Worry About Being Perfect, and Trust the Process
Supervisors can experience performance anxiety around the expec-
tation to understand and remember every discrete element from the ther-
apist, client, and reflecting team and around the expectation to discover
the “perfect activity” that will produce incredible benefit for all those
involved. Although it clearly is important for the supervisor to possess
necessary experience and appropriate qualifications, the supervisor is en-
couraged to “let go” of such concerns, to seek a state where worrying about
being “perfect” is reduced, and to trust the processes incorporated by the
ENHANCES model.
Center Attention and Feedback of Supervision Process on Therapist
Although it may seem obvious, supervisors are reminded to pay
close attention to the verbal and nonverbal cues of the therapist. Supervi-
sors are encouraged to maintain such a focus because the answers being
sought in supervision generally reside within the therapist. Professional
guidance and supervisor experience provide important sources of infor-
mation for the therapist, but all the information in the “therapeutic world”
will be of little value to a therapist who lacks the confidence or ability to
implement positive change with a client.
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 85
Seek to Use Metacommunication Structures for Guidance in Developing
Supervision Activities
As mentioned previously, one of the key ways to make action-
oriented hypotheses and resulting supervision activities is through the
use of metacommunication processes. Two examples of such processes
are the use of gerunds and of nominalizations. English gerunds are the
action form of a verb and always end with ing. Nominalizations are the
actual use of a verb or an adjective as a noun. Table 1 provides a descrip-
tive comparison of these terms.
Table 1
Sample Verbs, Gerunds, and Nominalizations
Verb Gerund Nominalization
Destroy Destroying Destruction
Arrive Arriving Arrival
Establish Establishing Establishment
Refer Referring Reference
Note. From Grammar: A Student’s Guide, by J. R. Hurford, 1994, p. 86.
In both cases, the “verbing” (i.e., the gerund process) or the “noun-
ing” (i.e., the nominalization process) of verbs transforms words and con-
cepts into potential sources rich for the creation of supervisory activities.
For example, in the first case study the supervisor considered the use of
several therapist verbs as rich sources for these processes (e.g., control,
press, stand over, drink, overwhelm, become emotional, break down, be
resistant, communicate, speak, fill). As seen in the written case study in
this article and the online visual presentation of Case Example 1, the ther-
apist context (i.e., the verbal and nonverbal context surrounding the
therapist’s verbs) led the therapist and supervisor to select an experiential
activity based on the verb composite and subsequent verbing and noun-
ing of “being in control,” “overwhelmed list,” “filling,” and “communi-
cating.” Other isomorphic connections (e.g., the use of water in a cup as
a metaphor for the Boost supplement, the “standing over” posture of the
activity) also provided a greater congruence to the metacommunication
process and a richness to the subsequent supervision experience.
Examples of this process also exist in the second case study. As seen
in the written case study and the online presentation of Case Example 2,
the therapeutic context led the therapist and the supervisor to co-create an
experiential activity based on the verb composite and subsequent verbing
86 Journal of Experiential Education
and nouning of “focusing,” “supporting,” “helping,” “connecting,” “dis-
traction,” “clear communication,” and “restructuring.” What is important
to note is that the client context—the client value system and “story
line”—and the subsequent restructured elements (e.g., moving child
farther away, tugging at the belt loops for attention) all directed the “mean-
ing” of an experiential activity traditionally used as a trust activity toward
an experience with much greater meaning around the client concepts of
redirecting and restructuring. Whenever possible, having the client guide
the construction and interpretation of the experiential activity process
(i.e., co-creation) has long been and remains a concept critical to the suc-
cess of isomorphic connections with any adventure and other experiential
programming (Gass, 1997; O’Hanlon, 2008).
Two additional concepts need mentioning regarding the use of the
ENHANCES model. First, the model has also been used quite effectively
with the supervision of therapists conducting more traditional “standard
therapies.” One therapeutic program successfully implementing the
ENHANCES model for traditional therapy supervision is OMNI Youth
Services, located in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. The model’s utility in these
settings needs further exploration.
Second, as with all emerging practices, more research needs to be
conducted to examine the various components and utility of the model.
This study possesses clear connections to research that validates the use
of co-created isomorphic/metaphoric framing (Gass & Priest, 2006), but
replication by different researchers in different settings needs to be con-
ducted. This is particularly true with the call for the validation of profes-
sional practices through evidenced-based research (Gass, 2005, 2006).
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 87
References
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). The fundamentals of clinical supervi-
sion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of counseling psychology
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cox, J. A., Banez, L., & Hawley, L. D. (2003). Use of the reflecting team process
in the training of group workers. Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
28(2), 89–105.
Creal, R. S., & Florio, N. (1986). The family wilderness program: A description
of the project and its ethical concerns. In M. Gass & L. Buell (Eds.), Proceed-
ings Journal for the 14th Annual AEE Conference: The Season of Ingenuity—
Ethics in Experiential Education. Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential
Education.
de Shazer, S. (1982). Patterns of brief family therapy: An ecosystemic approach.
New York: Guilford Press.
Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-
based approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Freitas, G. (2002). The impact of psychotherapy supervision on client outcome:
A critical examination of two decades of research. Psychotherapy:
Theory/Research/Practice/Training, 39(4), 354–367.
Gass, M. A. (Ed.). (1993). Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of
adventure programming. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Gass, M. A. (1997). Facilitation: A co-creation of client experience. Journal of
Experiential Education, 20(2), 67–68.
Gass, M. A. (2005). Comprehending the value structures influencing significance
and power behind experiential education research. Journal of Experiential
Education, 27(3), 286–296.
Gass, M. A. (2006). Evidenced-based research: Catalyst for action and future
paradigm for NATSAP programs? Journal of Therapeutic Schools and
Programs, 1(2), 4–10.
Gass, M. A., & Gillis, H. L. (1995a). CHANGES: An assessment model using
adventure experiences. Journal of Experiential Education, 18(1), 34–40.
Gass, M. A., & Gillis, H. L. (1995b). Focusing on the “solution” rather than the
“problem”: Empowering client change in adventure experiences. Journal of
Experiential Education, 18(2), 63–69.
Gass, M. A., & Gillis, H. L. (1998, November). A room with a view: Adventure
therapy programs in traditional office settings. Paper presented at the
Association for Experiential Education’s 26th Annual International
Conference, Lake Tahoe, NV.
Gass, M. A., & Priest, S. (2006). Effectiveness of metaphoric facilitation styles in
corporate adventure training (CAT) programs. Journal of Experiential
Education, 29(1), 18–24.
Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (1991). Approaches to the supervision of counselors.
In W. Dryden & B. Thorne (Eds.), Training and supervision for counseling in
action (pp. 99–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hurford, J. R. (1994). Grammar: A student’s guide. London: Cambridge
University Press.
88 Journal of Experiential Education
Kimball, R. (1983). The wilderness as therapy. Journal of Experiential
Education, 5(3), 6–9.
Knight, C. (2006). Integrating solution-focused principles and techniques into
clinical practice and supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 23(2), 153–173.
Leddick, G. R., & Bernard, J. M. (1980). The history of supervision: A critical
review. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27, 186–196.
Lowe, R., & Guy, G. (1996). Reflecting supervision. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 15(4), 26–45.
Merl, H. (1995). Reflecting therapeutic supervision. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 14(2), 47–56.
O’Hanlon, B. (2008). May I suggest being less suggestive? Family Therapy, 7(4),
24–26.
Paré, D. A. (1999). Using reflecting teams in clinical training. Canadian Journal
of Counseling, 33(4), 293–306.
Russell, K., & Phillips-Miller, D. (2002). Perspectives on the wilderness therapy
process and its relation to outcome. Child and Youth Care Forum, 31, 415–437.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Waltzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communi-
cation. New York: Norton.
Waltzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change. New York: Norton.
2010, Volume 33, No. 1 89
This article has been reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ASSOCIATION FOR EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION (AEE)
The Association for Experiential Education (AEE) is a nonprofit, professional membership association dedicated to
experiential education and the students, educators and practitioners who utilize its philosophy. We strive to:
• Connect educators in practical ways so that they have access to the growing body of knowledge that fuels
their growth and development
• Publish and provide access to relevant research, publications and resources
• Raise the quality and performance of experiential programs through our accreditation program
• Increase recognition of experiential education worldwide
AEE’s vision is to contribute to making a more just and compassionate world by transforming education.
AEE’s mission is to develop and promote experiential education. The association is committed to supporting
professional development, theoretical advancement and the evaluation of experiential education worldwide.
JOURNAL OF EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION
The Journal of Experiential Education (JEE) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal presenting a diverse range of
articles in subject areas such as outdoor adventure programming, service learning, environmental education,
therapeutic applications, research and theory, the creative arts, and much more.
The JEE is an invaluable reference tool for anyone involved in experiential education and a must for your library,
school, or organization's collection. It is published three times a year (November, March and August) and is mailed to
all AEE members as one of their membership benefits. The JEE can also be accessed online at aee.metapress.com
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Annual Conferences
Every November, the association convenes an annual conference of more than 900 attendees, with hundreds of
workshops, internationally recognized speakers and presenters, and more. Our signature event provides professional
development and renewal, skill building, continuing education units, and unsurpassed networking and community-
building opportunities.
Regions and Regional Conferences
AEE’s eight regions sponsor regional conferences, playdays, seminars, and other activities so members and the local
experiential education community can participate and network in smaller, more accessible and intimate settings.
Professional and Affiliation Groups
AEE professional and affiliation groups represent specific areas of focus or interest and offer opportunities for
members to share knowledge and build skills with other like-minded experiential educators and practitioners.
Involvement in the Association at any level is a great way to expand your network, try out new ideas, listen to others,
and work as a collective whole to build a world where experiential education can thrive.
JOIN US!
Memberships are available at different levels and benefit structures.
See all the details and join online.
www.aee.org
