CAUSAS DE RESCISION DEL CONTRATO

Researchers have used quantitative methods to examine the outcomes that have resulted among youth attending summer camps. Researchers have investigated this topic on a macro level and identified key areas of growth and development that occur as a result of engaging in a

summer camp program (ACA, 2006; Thurber et al., 2006). The quantitative methods used to measure SEL and youth developmental growth at camp have contributed a wealth of

information, yet the information regarding how these transformations occurred has been sparse. Further, the context of summer residential camp has not been examined in depth to elucidate how these experiences may be perceived by the millions of youth who participate in these summer recreational camp programs annually. The study of SEL within a camp setting has been rarely examined, as has a major contributor to SEL outcomes - the counselor-camper relationship. Therefore, an in-depth exploration of camp counselors’ awareness and demonstration of SEL and the campers’ perceptions of the counselors’ SEL behaviors during their interactions was

warranted and provided the impetus for this study.

Qualitative Approach

Qualitative research employs different approaches for studying behavior and inferring meaning compared to quantitative measures, as the emphasis is placed on understanding the experiences and their meanings to the individual through rich descriptions (Creswell, 2014). A qualitative approach for this study enabled the researcher to explore and gain a deeper

understanding of the SEL learning outcomes from the perspective of the camp counselor-camper relationship. A phenomenological approach, an important type of qualitative inquiry, was

Phenomenological Approaches to Research

The phenomenological approach has been used in various disciplines to guide both naturalistic and qualitative inquiries (Gallagher, 2012). This approach came of age at the turn of the 20th century in continental Europe particularly among German philosophers. Edmund Husserl is considered the founding father of phenomenology who considered it the “science of

appearances” (Gallagher, 2012, p. 8). There are many definitions of phenomenology, which appear to be influenced by the individual’s interpretation and/or use of the approach for their purposes. Nonetheless, phenomenology generally focuses on studying a particular phenomenon that has been experienced by an individual or group. Stewart and Mickunas (1990) suggested, “phenomenology is indeed a reasoned inquiry that which discovers the inherent essences of appearances…an appearance is anything of which one is conscious” (Robbins, 2006, p. 2). The essences referenced here speak to the meanings, categories, ideal types, and laws an individual attributes to their experience of the phenomenon. Thus, phenomenology has been used to explore and understand the meanings behind rare or unique situations such as the experience of being a caregiver (Sabat, 2009) or experiencing homesickness at camp (Thurber, 1999). These

phenomena are unlike the everyday lived experiences of most individuals, which necessitate a distinctive approach to understand their contextual influence and meaning.

The phenomenological approach lends itself to an Interpretivist perspective as well. An Interpretivist believes action and meaning are unique to the situation in which they occur (Schwandt, 2007). Researchers may ask questions such as “What is happening here? What do these happenings mean to the people engaged in the situation?” to gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ experience, feelings, as well as their personal understanding of the situation. This in-depth information is primarily gathered through conversation; thus participant interviews

provide a useful tool for illuminating their perspectives. Throughout the process, the researcher maintains an objective role, as the purpose is to understand the participant’s perspective not to infer meaning. The participants’ perspectives speak for themselves. However, Schwandt (2000) suggested the researcher must interpret participants’ behaviors or responses in some fashion in order to recognize these elements in the moment.

The phenomenon examined in this study centered on the campers’ perceptions of their counselors’ demonstration of social-emotional skills in a traditional summer residential camp program. The camp setting presented a distinct context that yielded narrative of the highly subjective counselor-camper experiences from the study participants. Phenomenology allowed the study to remain focused on the personal experiences and perceptions of the counselors and campers. The study involved gathering impressions and information prior to, during, and after the counselor-camper interactions, which provided rich descriptions as those relationships developed. Furthermore, the role youth fulfill in this study closely aligns with the positive youth development perspective that youth are agents in their own development, as their voice and experience will be highly valued (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). For these reasons, a

phenomenological approach was adopted for this study. Setting for the Study

The selected site for this study was Camp Greenleaf, which was located in a rural Midwestern community. The camp property was situated within a large public park

approximately 10 minutes outside of the town. The camp provided a traditional overnight camp experience to boys and girls by offering a variety of activities including fishing, canoeing, swimming, arts and crafts, and more. Four five-day sessions are offered annually to youth ages 8 to 16 during June and July.

Camp Greenleaf was selected for this study due to the traditional program design of the camp sessions in addition to the co-ed youth population. The researcher previously provided consultation services for the organization overseeing the operations of Camp Greenleaf. This consultation work involved conducting as assessment of summer residential camp programs. Camp Site Culture

Each camp operates under a philosophy or set of beliefs. This situation is similar to many non-profit organizations, which the camp’s philosophy is often intertwined throughout the operations. Prior to entering the field, the camp director and I discussed several operational components in-depth such as the daily schedule, staff, and activities. However, I quickly recognized much of this information was misinterpreted by me, particularly the camp

philosophy, structure, and staff responsibilities. This misinterpretation may have been beneficial, as I then spent considerable time and effort learning the culture of this specific camp program in order to conduct more accurate observations.

The concept of camp culture was questioned on the first full day of camp. The absence of camp administrators and limited interaction between campers and counselors during activities was perplexing compared to my prior experiences with numerous other camps. Initially, I

wondered if this situation was related to that particular day, but these practices did not change as the program progressed. On three distinct occasions, a counselor, staff member, or administrator referred to the unique “culture” of the camp. This term suggested something distinct might be occurring and I sought to gain a deeper understanding of the camp’s culture throughout the study.

This camp’s culture ultimately derived from the camp director’s perspective about the purpose of summer residential camps. The camp director believed the program should be built

around the counselors, as they were the individuals responsible for creating an exciting experience for the campers. Most importantly, the counselors and staff were regarded as the reason the campers continually attended this camp. The loose camp structure also stemmed from the belief that a camp program should not be overly structured. Rather, youth should have substantial freedom to choose their activity participation during the majority of the day. The counselors and staff members were given considerable freedom to plan and implement activities they believed would be most enjoyable for the campers. The camp administrators operated in a secondary, supportive role the majority of time unless an immediate need was present. They primarily supported and worked with the staff and activity coordinators responsible for the planning and direction of the camp program activities. The administrators never ate meals with the camp, however, they frequently visited with campers and staff during the evening activities. During the third and fourth week of camp, the administrators were observed engaging with campers, counselors, and staff during the regularly scheduled activities, whereas these

interactions were only observed with the advanced coordinators during the initial camp sessions. There is a second component that contributed to the distinct culture of this camp. Every counselor and staff member, with the exception of three individuals, attended this program when they were younger. Moreover, many individuals had been engaged with the program for 8-10 years, and several served as a counselor-in-training (CIT) prior to employment. The counselors and staff members regularly spoke of the fun they experienced as a camper and hoped the current campers would have similar experiences. However, the counselors and staff appeared to believe this great experience would occur only with limited intervention. These statements and the limited counselor-camper interactions during activity periods made me question if these adults

truly set aside their interest in creating their own camp memories or if peer interactions remained a high priority. This question was never answered.

The third and final component leading to the distinct culture of this camp pertained to the free choice these campers experienced in the program. The daily schedule of activities provided approximately five hours of unstructured, free choice time. Four hours were dedicated to the activity periods where campers freely moved between six activity areas at their leisure. Campers were not required to sign up or inform counselors when and where they wanted to participate, thus the campers possessed a high level of freedom. In each activity area, the counselors and staff primarily provided equipment or materials for the activity. The Rec area appeared to have the greatest frequency of counselor-camper interactions compared to the other areas. The counselors and staff regularly participated in the games or sports, and limited instructions were given to campers by the individuals working in the waterfront, outdoor ed, or arts and crafts areas. Periodic interaction occurred in these areas, such as short conversations or answering questions about the projects or games. However, the design for this “free choice” structure may have contributed to the limited counselor-camper interactions and high frequency of campers’ peer interactions.

The time dedicated to understanding the philosophy and culture of this camp program was worth the challenge. A lack of understanding would have been a disservice to the study and the camp had my initial perspective been maintained and had I not sought a broader awareness. Since the schedule and structure were different from my previous experiences, I would not have been able to provide an accurate picture and interpretation during the observational periods of the counselors. Furthermore, I needed to understand the philosophy and culture in order to be open to the campers’ interview responses. Additionally, this understanding was necessary for creating

an openness to the actions occurring during observations and it limited researcher bias due to misinterpretation. As a qualitative researcher, it is important to be open to these experiences, the participants’ viewpoints, and what is happening in those moments, yet to also recognize the historical influences.

A Typical Camp Day

The camp day was divided into several program periods and followed this basic format.

7:30am Wake-up

8:00-8:30am Breakfast 8:30-8:45am Flag Raising 8:45-9:45am Club Time 9:45-10:00am Cabin Time 10:00am-12:00pm Activity Period #1 12:00-12:15pm Cabin Time 12:15-1:00pm Lunch

1:00-1:45pm Boots Off (Rest Hour) 1:45-2:45pm Cabin Group Activity 3:00-5:00pm Activity Period #2 5:00-5:30pm Free Time 5:30-6:00pm Cabin Time 6:00-6:45pm Dinner 6:45-7:00pm Flag Lowering 7:00-8:45pm Unit Games 8:45-9:00pm Cabin Time

9:00-10:15pm Evening All Camp Activity 10:15-11:00pm Return to Cabins/Bedtime Program Period Definitions

Flag raising: This program occurred after breakfast and the American flag, State of Illinois flag, and 4-H flag were raised each day. Campers and counselors encircled the flag pole. Counselors typically stood behind the campers.

Club time: For one-hour on mornings of day 2-5, special clubs were led by the counselors. The club interest varied (e.g., Spanish, Allerton Park, Under the Sea, teams course). There were

were not allowed to change there club selection, which was the only activity with this arrangement.

Activity periods: Two activity periods were offered days 2, 3, and 4. All five activity areas (arts and crafts, outdoor education, recreation, waterfront, creation station, and rock wall) were open during the morning session, with rock wall closed in the afternoon session. Campers freely moved between these activities at their leisure. One staff coordinator and several counselors were assigned to these areas for the duration of the summer.

Cabin time: This was a 15-minute period when campers reported to their cabin and counselor. There are four cabin times per day on days 2 - 4 and twice on drop off/pick up days.

Cabin group activity: This activity occurred in the afternoon each day except for the pick up day. For one hour, each cabin participated in a collective activity. Multiple cabins participated

together in the activity. Cabin groups selected their top three choices from a list of group activity options (ex: hayrack ride, rock wall, extra cabin time, AC hour, boating, swimming, etc.) during breakfast. These activities were led by the activity area coordinators.

Boots off: One hour immediately following lunch was a rest period for everyone at their cabins. Campers and counselors were encouraged to nap, read a book, listen to music, or generally hang out. Depending on the counselor, the older campers were allowed to play games or sunbath outside their cabins. Many groups sat at the tables in the breezeway between cabins and talked. This was a general quiet time around the camp.

Free time: At the conclusion of activity period #2, there was an additional 30 minutes of free time when campers were allowed in their cabins or could continue playing games at the Recreation activity area.

Flag lowering: This occurred each evening after dinner. All three flags were lowered and properly folded. Campers and counselors encircled the flag pole. Once the American flag was folded, the entire camp sang Taps.

Unit Games: On the evenings of day 2 and 3, the campers and counselors participated in physical games with their unit teams. The unit teams were mixed gender and ages with three counselors. Points were awarded for each game and the winning team was announced on the final camp day. Evening Programs: All campers and counselors participated in the late evening activity. These activities included a large camp fire with staff skit, camper talent show, and dance with

candlelight ceremony.

Dance: The dance was held on day 4 in the Recreation pavilion. Some male campers wore shirts and ties while some female campers wore dresses and fixed their hair and make-up. Generally, campers wore t-shirts and shorts, but the counselors and staff

dressed up for a theme (tacky tourist, decades, patriotism, girls versus boys). A variety of music was played, but most songs had a faster beat. The counselors led 6 to 8 dances, from the stage, which encouraged the campers and counselors to participate in the dancing.

Candlelight Ceremony: After the dance, campers returned to their cabin to change clothes and apply bug spray then returned to the Recreation pavilion with their group. Each cabin group walked silently, in the dark, from the pavilion to a garden beyond the camp

entrance. The walk took approximately 5 minutes. Everyone entered a candlelit garden while staff members played guitars. Staff members shared their wishes for the campers and then they lit the counselors’ candles as each cabin group shared their favorite memory from the week. The counselor lit their campers’ candles, which created a sea of

flickering candlelight throughout the darkened garden. This was a solemn ceremony and shaky voices and sniffling was heard during each ceremony.

Participants

The participants of this study consisted of the camp counselors and youth attending the program. The youth attending this camp ranged in age from 8 to 16 years, however only campers between the ages of 10 and 12 years participated in this study. Erikson and others (Piaget and Vygotsky) have viewed this developmental stage of Late Childhood as a time when youth begin actively exploring other social systems beyond their home (Eccles, 1999). This exploration allows youth to gain a sense of industry as well as learn key social and cooperative skills that are essential for working with their peers and other adults (Erikson, 1968). Therefore, summer residential camps present a potentially fruitful opportunity for this age group to gain these experiences through their engagement with the camp counselors. The researcher sought to engage campers from each cabin, with whom their parent’s permission was granted, to understand the shared meaning of their interactional experience.

The camp counselors who were assigned to directly work and live with these campers were a significant focus for this study. These staff members had the most direct interaction with these campers through both structured (e.g., planned programs) and informal activities (e.g., rest periods). Additionally, the cabin counselors were the primary caregivers for the campers and they were responsible for building a trusting and positive rapport with them. This relationship served as the focal point for examining the counselors’ SEL interactions with the campers.

Some research has indicated female and male youth respond differently to SEL interventions. Barr and Higgins-D’Alessandro (2007) found that some female students demonstrated a greater ability to reflect upon their behaviors compared to male students. The

nature of this study intended to elucidate the potential learning opportunities between the counselor and camper, thus close observation of counselor interactions was important. The researcher elected to gather data only from female participants to provide a richer narrative on the influence of the relationship and interactions based on Barr and Higgins-D’Alessandro’s research. Furthermore, the researcher was afforded greater access to cabin groups due to shared gender roles.

Selection of Participants

All study participants were recruited at the beginning of the camp program. The

researcher arrived on-site during the pre-camp staff training. A camp administrator identified the female counselors that met the criteria for participation of a minimum age 18, one-year prior counselor experience, and assigned to female cabin groups aged 10 to 12 years. The researcher spoke with seven counselors on the final training day to explain the study in greater detail. Four counselors agreed to participate and signed the consent forms.

Campers were recruited throughout the program. Each week the researcher met with the campers’ parents assigned to the participating counselor’s cabin group. During the check-in process, a picnic table was placed approximately 10 yards from the cabin and the counselor directed the parents to a station to discuss the study and their child’s participation with the researcher. Each cabin group consisted of 8 campers and all campers within the selected weekly cabin group were initially invited to participate. Out of the 28 campers assigned to these

counselors, a total of 22 campers’ parents consented to their daughter’s participation in the study.