Eric Evertson1, Kristen Andrews, and Brandy Holfelder2
This paper was presented at the Association for Challenge Course Technology 22nd Annual
International Symposium and Conference on 10 February 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts. It was
also presented at the New Mexico Higher Education Assessment and Retention Conference on 1
March 2013 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership
development of participants within the "leadership laboratory" at New Mexico Military Institute.
Sixty-six cadet participants, divided among eight teams, reported the impact of their participation
in 6.0 hours of leadership and teambuilding activities at a low and high course and Leadership
Reaction Course (a structured, "Super" Low Ropes typically used for military exercises). The
program focused on effective leadership across four domains: communication, self-motivation,
team development, and confidence building. Likert scale results of self-reported dispositions
indicated increasing internalization of “motivation” and “confidence.” The greatest impacts were
on the external behaviors of “communication” and “team development.” Participants reported
that the Leadership Reaction Course provided the most impactful experience in developing
leadership behaviors across the four domains. Supporting this was a mentoring program where
experienced facilitators partnered up with those recently trained. Having a partner and mentor
provided encouragement and confidence to the new facilitator. An experienced facilitator who
was able to give immediate feedback on the program design, risk management, and presentation
of activities guided them through.
Success in the digital and globally integrated world of the 21st Century requires skills in selfmotivation, self-confidence, communication and teamwork. Generally speaking, students need
two sets of skills to succeed as leaders: cognitive intelligence and social/emotional intelligence3
(self-management, interpersonal skills, etc). The former focuses on how to think, and the other
on how to interact. The former challenges students to conclusions and compels them to
concede them; the latter removes doubts as experience finds rest in truth.4 A growing body of
research reveals that students engaged in activities that require applying classroom-acquired
knowledge to real-world problems contribute to a richer, deeper understanding of lessons
1
Eric Evertson is the Manager of the Yates Leadership Challenge: Ropes & Leadership Reaction Course at New
Mexico Military Institute. He has been in the industry for 13 years as a facilitator and manager. He has a passion
for youth to excell and is a licensed teacher with a Masters Degree in Education.
2
Kristen Andrews is a college freshman at New Mexico Military Institute, and Brandy Holfelder is a high school
junior at New Mexico Military Institute.
3
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
4
Roger Bacon, 1268
1
learned5. Additionally, Durlak and Weissberg6, upon an analysis of 207 programs involving
emotional and social activities, linked these programs with the academic success, positive life
skills, and increased aptitude in leadership ability. With increasing educational demands on our
students, we must recognize the importance of enriching the learning environment with high
quality experiences that help them to connect the real world. Often times this means that skills
developed for success cannot be learned in a traditional classroom setting.
In recent years, challenge courses have been utilized as a methodology for improving
interpersonal skills7 and to encourage personal growth8. A challenge course is a series of
supervised individual and or group challenges that can be used for recreation, educational,
developmental, or therapeutic purposes. Though testimonial findings indicate positive impact
research to validate these claims must substantiate these statements.
To this end, the challenge course provides unique
Effective leadership is taught…
situations that require participants to draw upon
…through the use of shared projects and
genuine team process skills; and develops,
events as they identify, apply and
emphasizes and reinforces leader, follower, and
practice various skills,
teamwork skills at both the individual and work…through active learning where students
team levels (e.g., squad, platoon, and troop). A state
step into defined leadership roles, and
of disequilibrium or disorder allows emphasis to be
must take risks, be encouraged to make
placed upon both task and process-related themes
mistakes, and revise various strategies
as the group has to organize itself around the
to accomplish various tasks,
challenge. Effectiveness of learning is enhanced
…as individuals work with others in a
through its kinesthetic imprint or whole body
positive collaborative manner,
learning of cognitive principles because the learning
…where adults engage students as
is graphic as it involves physical, mental, and
mentors, guides, and collaborators in
behavioral dimensions. Input from all team
learning,
members is required to produce outcomes from
…raising students’ awareness and
activities that are specifically designed to not suit
developing the capacity for excellent
just one team role, style or behavior. One person
communication and problem-solving.
cannot possibly succeed alone, so the
interdependence of the team is highlighted along
with the importance of diversity within the team. The environment provides a highly enjoyable
way to learn and develop team and management process skills. Fun is a powerful aspect of
effective learning with participants becoming more open to the experience and creative whilst
participating in it.9
5
Darling-Hammond and others. (2008). Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding,
Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. (2007). The Impact of After School Programs That Promote Personal and Social
Skills. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning.
7
Springett, N. R. (1987). The evaluation of development training courses. Master's thesis, University of Sheffield,
England.
8
Herbert 1996, Nassar Cashwell, Herbert, T. (1996). Use of adventure-based counseling programs for persons with
disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 62
9
Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1997). Processing the experience: Strategies to enhance and generalize learning.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
6
2
Experts in education agree on five key principles that describe effective leadership education—
principles that track closely with the key elements of an experiential approach (See sidebar10).
These principles are evident at New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI), a four-year college
preparatory high school and two-year junior college, whose “whole person” approach with an
overarching emphasis to educate tomorrow’s leaders in academic excellence, physical fitness,
and leadership, all centered around a Corps of Cadets.
The challenge course, designated as the Yates Leadership Challenge, is a “leadership
laboratory” supporting leadership taught in a traditional classroom and refining the leadership
skills of cadets within the Corps of Cadets. The challenge course facility at NMMI consists of a
high ropes, low ropes, and nine leadership reaction course events. Though commonly utilized in
various branches of the military, a “field leadership reaction course”, commonly called an LRC
or FLRC, is an outdoor adventure-based learning facility with structured "leadership challenges"
encouraging participants to think, react, work as a team, and solve problems in order to
complete a primary objective in a determined period of time. Leaders receive a mission,
brainstorm, execute, and re-adjust to complete the mission under a time restraint.
The primary curriculum of instruction from Field Manual (FM) 6-22 Army Leadership, which
establishes sound leadership doctrine and fundamental principles in the BE-KNOW-DO context.
Development of leadership skills at the challenge course takes part on two fronts – the
development of facilitators and the development of participants. Cadet Facilitators are trained
on both courses to develop integrated programs that create an atmosphere for other cadets to
explore various facets of leadership. These Cadet Facilitators move from simply being a leader
to that of mentor and teacher, instructing others about leadership. This means each facilitator
must fine-tune his/her leadership and communication skills to adequately present the program,
follow the safety procedures without exception, and provide opportunities for reflection and
application to various scenarios outside the courses. Facilitators must understand the various
stages of group development, assess the needs of the group, be able to recognize individual
needs, fears and challenges, and adjust programming appropriately to the audience. When off
the course, they are charged with being role-models to those around them as they are
encouraged to leave behind a positive legacy in the Corps of Cadets.
This study was conducted at the Yates Leadership Challenge Course on the campus of New
Mexico Military Institute. During the 2011 fall semester, the challenge course curriculum
focused on four of twenty key principles found in the US Army FM 6-22. Cadet Facilitators
developed programs designed to build “communication”, “self-motivation”, “team
development”, and “confidence building in personal leadership skills”. Diagram 1 identifies the
four key leadership qualities evaluated in this study aligned to the US Army’s Leadership
Framework.
10
Woyach, R. B. (1996). Five Principles for Effective Youth Leadership Development Programs. Leadership Link-A
Quarterly publication of the Ohio State University Extension Leadership Center, Spring.
3
The primary purpose of the leadership Diagram 1 – Four Leadership Qualities Evaluated in this study aligned to
the US Army’s Leadership Framework Found in FM 6-22
study was to evaluate the program’s
ability to increase self-evaluated
Evaluation Tool US Army Leadership Framework
Communication  Core Leader Competency
attitudes of these four leadership facets.
o What a leader does
These skills were identified for two
 Communicates
reasons. The first reason is that it
Self Motivation  Core Leader Competency
correlated with the desired outcomes of
o What a leader does

Prepares Self
the school and current research has
Team
 Core Leader Competency
found that experiential leadership
Development
o What a leader does
education improves students’ personal

Develops Others
Confidence
 Attribute
management habits (including selfo What a leader is
confidence and motivation, increases

A leader with presence –
social capacity, academic achievement,
Confident
and develops essential 21st century
skills11. The second purpose was to
evaluate which events best lead to improvements across four leadership domains. Sequencing
is important in correlating the relationship of events participated in to the impact on outcomes.
Cadet Facilitators, with guidance from the Challenge Course Manager, designed a questionnaire
to acquire data that aligned to the US Army Leadership Framework. We were looking for
consistent responses from participants informing us which event had the greatest impact on
the development of the group. The final aspect was to debrief the facilitators’ experiences,
collecting qualitative data on their personal development and improvement of facilitation skills
as the less experienced facilitators shared responsibility of the program design and
implementation.
Cadet Facilitators designed programs that engaged the participants in various activities at the
low ropes, high ropes, and leadership reaction course (LRC). However, LRC events were limited
to a program could incorporate only one of three events; the high ropes could only include the
Climbing Wall, Vertical Challenge (also known as the Vertical Playpen), Leap of Faith, and Zip
Line. Facilitators could choose any of the course’s fifteen low rope events.
Sixty-nine adolescent participants, between the ages of 14 and 22, engaged in challenging
adventure programming at the challenge course and LRC. All participants were cadet enrolled
at New Mexico Military Institute and were scheduled to participate in three 2.0 hour programs.
The participants consisted of 58 males (84%) and 11 females (16%). There were eight groups
averaging 8 to 12 participants. Six experienced facilitators (4 males and 2 females) were paired
up to work together with five facilitators (3 males and 2 females) who completed training prior
to the school year. Experienced facilitators, termed “Senior Facilitators” had over 200.0 hours
11
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson P.D., Schoenfeld, A.H., Stage, E.K. Zimmerman, T.D., Cervetti, G.N.,
Tilson, J.L. (2008). Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding. Chapter 1. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4
of direct participant contact. Those just trained, termed “Junior Facilitators” had completed a
five day, 40.0 hour leadership training and challenge course certification program.
Upon the completion of a 6.0 hour program, each individual completed the survey diagramed in
Appendix A. All completed the survey and the data was collected. Finally, the facilitators were
debriefed. The manager noted the sequence of events and recorded the results of the group’s
data on a form. Both partnered facilitators reflected on the experience and lessons learned. See
Participant Leadership Evaluation Form in Appendix B.
Diagram 2 – Data Results from a Likert Scale (1 – 5) indicating before and after differences & percentage
Results yielded
change in perceived attitudes
considerable useful
data. All areas
Average Average Numeric Percent Standard Median Median Correlation
showed positive
Before
After Difference Change Deviation Before After Co-Efficient
results, typically
Team Development
2.89
4.35
+1.50
29.14%
1.16
3.0
5.0
0.498381
moving from
Motivation
3.08
4.42
+1.44
26.77%
1.09
3.0
5.0
0.396061
“average in score”
Communication
3.08
4.32
+1.41
24.92%
1.17
3.0
4.0
0.225431
to “above average.”
Confidence
3.32
4.41
+1.33
21.82%
0.99
3.0
5.0
0.318938
The greatest
difference in self-reported attitude was “Team Development” which increased by 29.14%. This
is primarily attributed when groups participated in the LRC events or Team Wall, suggesting
that the greater the challenge to the group, both mentally and physically, the more significant
the growth. These two events also require a high level of critical thinking and a well-developed
plan before beginning the event.
Diagram 3 – Area in which the program helped
improve (open ended response)
With a differential value slightly less than “Team
Development,” data indicated that “Motivation” had a selfreported score increasing to 26.77%. Numeric change
increased in “Communication” and in “Confidence” 24.92%
and 21.82%, respectively. The correlation co-efficient
indicates that the data is somewhat consistent however there
are some unknown, inherent variables in the data.
When asked about what area the experience helped them to
improve the top two responses were “Teamwork” at nearly
16.00% and “Trust” at nearly 14.50%. “Communication,”
“Confidence,” and “Leadership” were tied at 13.04%.
One-third of the respondents remarked that the most
impactful event to develop the team was their participation in
the LRC with a close second of the Team Wall at nearly
28.00%.
5
Percentage Response
Teamwork
15.94%
Trust
14.49%
Communication
13.04%
Confidence
13.04%
Leadership
13.04%
Motivation
8.70%
Overcome Fears
4.35%
Others
17.39%
Diagram 4 – One event that best helped the
development of the group (open ended
response)
Percentage Response
LRC
33.33%
Team Wall
27.54%
Triangle Traverse
10.14%
Climbing Wall
8.70%
Leap of Faith
7.25%
Low Ropes
4.35%
Others
8.69%
Four Leadership Domains
One can infer that the reason why the top two qualities of “Team Development” and
“Motivation” were noted by participants is due to the consistent messaging from event to
event during the program. With constant reinforcement of these two aspects, these attributes
are better engrained into the minds of the individuals.
It is interesting to note that “Confidence” was the attribute least developed among the four
characteristics. One explanation may be that the dynamic of NMMI is such that each participant
inherently embodies a body of internal confidence. This is evident in the narrow standard
deviation (0.99). This may be attributed to environmental factors – such as the society where
each cadet grew up before attending NMMI or it may be learned through various imbedded
leadership aspects that all cadets participate in at this school.
The primary requirement is that each student is to actively participate in the Corps of Cadets.
The individuals participating at the course, daily strive toward grasping an opportunity to hold a
leadership position within the Corps of Cadets. In order to do so, they have opportunities to
assert their command presence in such a way that they will earn respect. In summary,
confidence may be a pre-existing quality within the cadets due to the other combined
leadership opportunities essential to NMMI.
Area Which the Program Most Helped to Improve
Aside from the four leadership domains quantitatively evaluated, we wanted to qualitatively
assess the participants’ perceptions regarding other leadership behaviors. Not surprising was
the primary response of “teamwork” followed closely by “trust.” These attributes are
consistently reinforced themes throughout the program. The cadets participating in the
leadership programs may have known the people in his or her group anywhere from weeks to
years. However this does not necessarily indicate a level of trust in each other. This may be one
reason trust is the second highest rated response in that, through reliance on their team
members to complete selected events, there is a similar correlation to their ability to more fully
rely on each other.
Event that Developed the Team the Most
Upon evaluating the programs, most teams participated in one event at the Leadership
Reaction Course (LRC). Despite the limited time, typically 20 minutes, compared to the hours
spent doing the Low Ropes and High Ropes, it had the most consistent responses among
participants suggesting that the events at the LRC develops a broader range of leadership
attributes. This may be because the LRC focuses on planning, direct leadership, and clearly
identified roles throughout each event. The result was so strong that we expect it to be the
primary factor generating the positive results across the four leadership domains quantitatively
evaluated.
Surprisingly the High Rope events of the Climbing Wall and Leap of Faith had the fourth and
fifth most common response. The primarily focus on increasing the internal locus of control – in
this case the internal workings of Confidence and Motivation. Typical thinking among adults is
6
that “bigger is better” – and those events where participants are put in activities high above
ground should be the most impactful. However, considering the responses where the high rope
events were not noted as often as the LRC and two Low Ropes events indicates that the
participants valued the lessons taught at earlier stages before progressing to the high ropes.
This only confirms that when it comes to outcomes, the high ropes, due to its focus on the
participant’s internal locus of control, may be best utilized to develop one’s personal, internal
qualities (e.g. self-talk and confidence) that must be nurtured on an individual level.
Facilitator Mentor Program
This semester, a mentoring process that partnered experienced facilitators (termed “Senior
Facilitators”) and facilitators just recently trained (termed “Junior Facilitators”) was developed.
These junior facilitators had only recently completed a 40.0 hour training course. It was
interesting to note the responses that arose from both parties after the completion of the
programs.
The junior facilitators most commonly remarked that, when working under a senior facilitator,
they were able to refine their presentation skills in delivering spotting training. Another
common theme was learning about how to better sequence events through writing out plans
and discussing the sequence with their partners. They saw firsthand how the order of events
can drastically affect group attitude and dynamics – moving the lessons learned from an
academic knowledge to an experiential understanding. Partnering allowed the senior facilitator
to take a more supportive role by providing encouragement to the other; thereby promoting
the confidence of the junior facilitator in their ability to assert their authority if the group was
unfocused. During debriefing sessions, the senior facilitator cordially nudged the junior partner
guiding them when they occasionally strayed off topic. A number of senior facilitators
commented that they had to develop restraint by not directly helping participants during
difficult events. Several remarked at their ability to begin the evaluation process to observe
(and accept) other styles of leadership that may differ from their own. The senior facilitators
noted that, when working with a partner, they were forced to strengthen qualities including,
but not limited to, patience, teamwork, effective planning, and debriefing.
An interesting concept arose when debriefing. Several facilitators noticed an increase in the
focus of the group when events had a particular sequencing. They noticed that their groups
were most effective when they began with high-intensity events with moderate risk (such as a
timed LRC event), and proceeded to more complicated events (low rope events with a problem
solving focus), ending with a number of high rope events. One reason this was effective was
because initial events of high intensity force the participants to start the norming allowing them
to understand exactly what is going to be expected out of them – full participation and
commitment. In addition, if a similar type of event is the last one to be completed, it allows for
the participants to see the true growth their group has achieved and the changes that resulted.
While many studies have sought to understand challenge courses and their benefits, few
studies have sought to understand participants’ perception of these programs. The course and
school will not merely accept the idea that “they help”. This study has attempted to answer
“how” and “why” challenge courses are positive catalysts for change in leadership behaviors.
7
Recommendations include conducting a larger study. The next time we conduct a study in a
manner such as this, we would monitor more than four qualities. Our perception may change
regarding how events could be utilized to focus and align to particular leadership outcomes.
Developing a more detailed data tool with more specific demographics could identify which age
groups are getting the most benefit. Additionally, this study is limited in scope. Evaluating the
impact in developing leaders in the Corps of Cadets as a result of their participation at the
course is in order. Finally, cadets may like LRC because they are positively predisposed to
military situations. This may unintentionally bias the results. Thus, additional studies should
include non-cadet groups.
It is difficult to narrowly quantify participant attributes among various leadership qualities. Also
there is not a baseline score to statistically show an increase in perceived behaviors. In the
open-ended section there was a redundancy of answers in relation to the four domains
evaluated. It could be that the areas explored were the top attributes developed or that some
may not have thorough enough self-understanding to reflect on other leadership aspects.
Another variable is that the senior facilitators’ average age is 18.9 years old. This is quite young
compared to other studies done at other courses. More experienced, older facilitators might
change the dynamics of the lessons learned. Moreover, this study is only a narrow cross-section
of the student body. The survey did not include any cadets participating in sports after-school,
any of the junior college students prepping for a military academy appointment, or those junior
college cadets involved in the Reserve Officer Training Corps program. Administrators suggest
that there is a correlation of grades and specific leadership behaviors to positive attitudes in
other areas of student life as a direct impact of programs at the Challenge Course and LRC. One
major limitation is that no data regarding long-term assessment of leadership skills with a
correlation to the programs at the Challenge Course and LRC is available. In an environment like
NMMI, it would be easy to monitor these aspects of the participants’ lives, but the true test
would be in a civilian lifestyle; one in which students are not always asked to take the initiative
and be leaders within their own environments.
In summary, feedback was generally positive. The study gave the facilitators a wealth of insight
about how to align particular events to the desired outcomes of groups participating at on the
course. With these things in mind, the facilitators formulate a curriculum that is specifically
tailored to a group’s needs. With these results, the facilitators can now know, and not just
assume, what events will strengthen certain characteristics. This will allow the facilitators to
8
create a more useful experience that will strengthen the participants even after they leave our
course. Typically, leadership applies to the real world through generalization; a more effective
model is to target specific outcomes—i.e. training could be over generalizable and not strongly
correlate to applications outside of challenge course settings. This study verifies the challenge
course’s ability to promote specific positive leadership attributes.
The general sense among facilitators was a newfound sense of responsibility. After years of
service on the course, they feel responsible for ensuring that their successors will continue to
uphold the standards previously set. There is a sense of increased ownership and, for that
reason, mentor the new facilitators to the very best of their abilities. This study has made the
facilitators more aware of the importance of evaluating the sequencing of events and how it
correlates to various leadership activities. Communication, Self-Motivation, Team
Development, and Confidence are qualities and attributes that all should attempt to
strengthen. With our program, this is not only possible, but a strong connection has been
demonstrated.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank COL Natalie Stewart-Smith, COL Terri Waggoner, and MAJ Gustavo
Garza for their assistance.
9
Appendix A – Participant Leadership Evaluation Form
Participant Leadership Evaluation Form
Group _______________________
Today’s Date ________________________ Male___ Female ___
Key
1 – Very Poor
4 – Above Average
2 – Somewhat Poor
5 – Excellent
3 – Average
NA – Not Relevant/Applicable
Before the Training After the Training
(circle 1)
(circle 1)
1 2 3 4 5 NA
1 2 3 4 5 NA
1. Motivation Level
1 2 3 4 5 NA
1 2 3 4 5 NA
2. Team Development / Trust
1
2
3
4
5
NA
1 2 3 4 5 NA
3. Confidence in personal leadership skills
1 2 3 4 5 NA
1 2 3 4 5 NA
4. Communication skill development
5. This experience has helped me to improve(one word):
6. 1 event / activity that best helped the group develop:
7. Would you do it again (circle 1) ? Yes / Maybe /No
10
Appendix B – Participant Leadership Evaluation Form Group _________________________________ Date of Evaluation __________________
1
B
2
A
B
3
A
B
4
A
B
5
A
B
6
A
B
7
A
B
8
A
B
9
A
B
10
A
B
11
A
B
12
A
B
13
A
B
14
A
B
A
1. Motivation level
2. Team development /
trust
3. Confidence in personal
leadership skills
4. Communication skill
development
5. This experience has helped me to improve: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. One event / activity that best helped the group develop: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Would you do it again? # Yes _____________ / Maybe _____________ / No _____________
Senior Facilitator/s: _________________________________________________________ Junior Facilitator/s:
_____________________________________________________
Activities Executed During this Training:
Initiatives
Low Elements
High Elements
LRC
□ Out Like Flint
□ Over the Fence
□ Sewers
Course Summary, i.e. WHAT WAS REALLY LEARNED or describe the best teachable moments or outcomes actually learned by the participants in the group:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Senior Facilitator – What did you learn this week about Facilitation?
Junior Facilitator – What did you learn this week about Facilitation?
11