MSU LIBRARIES —__ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. K- CAMPERS' INTENTIONS AND THEIR FULFILLMENTS: A STUDY OF COUNSELORS' AWARENESS IN A RESIDENT SUMMER CAMPING EXPERIENCE BY James Arvid Ritsema A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration College of Education 1985 ABSTRACT CAMPERS' INTENTIONS AND THEIR FULFILLMENTS: A STUDY OF COUNSELORS' AWARENESS IN A RESIDENT SUMMER CAMPING EXPERIENCE BY James Arvid Ritsema Intentions and their fulfillments are EH1 integral part of educational effectiveness. The purpose of the study was to investigate camper intentions and their fulfillments as well as camp counselor awareness of these intentions and fulfillments in a summer resi- dent camping experience. Philosophers argue for the existence of intentions. For social psychologists, intentions are attributed to people in order to help explain reasons for their behaviors. Some communication theorists acknowledge the reciprocal role between actor and observer in com- municating intent. Educators support the position that educational intentions are essential to the educa- tional process. The research instrument adapted and designed speci- fically for the descriptive study, was a sixteen closed- ended. itenl questionnaire» Campers, parents, and. camp counselors completed the rquestionnaire. Various forms of descriptive statistics were employed in the analysis of data; the F test for a split-plot repeated measure, the F test for a one-way repeated measure, and the James Arvid Ritsema Spearman lfiflflC order correlation coefficient, with Fish- er's Z transformation. A critical level of .01 was established. From the findings of the study, four conclusions are made. Campers consider general objectives to be more important than specific objectives. Fulfillment of socio-psychological needs are important txJ campers. Camper initial expectations and camp counselor awareness of camper intentions are: not significantly’ correlated. Camper initial expectations and parent awareness of camper intentions are not significantly correlated. To Esther, the "special person" in my life ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A heartfelt appreciation is expressed to Dr. Ted Ward, academic advisor and committee chairperson. Thank you for your high standards, support, and encour- agement. To Jane G. Ritsema, my mother, appreciation is expressed. for rmn: love, supportq and, patience. Thank you for all the typing that was involved. To Esther J. Ritsema, my wife, appreciation is expressed for workimg at my side throughout the disser- tation. Thank you for your love, encouragement, support, understanding, longsuffering, and patience. To Troy and Robyn Ritsema, my children, a sincere appreciation i1; expressed ikn: your understanding, love, and patience. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I II PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH QUESTIONS . . . . . . . IMPORTANCE . . . . . . . . . . ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . GENERALIZABILITY . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRECEDENT LITERATURE . . . . . . INTENTIONS AND PHILOSOPHY . . . . INTENTIONS AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY INTENTIONS AND COMMUNICATION . . EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES. . . . . . CAMPING AS EDUCATION . . . . . . IMPLIED VALUES. . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi 10 ll 12 14 15 15 l6 l7 l9 19 21 23 29 34 36 39 41 Chapter Page III PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SUBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 INSTRUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 IV FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 RESEARCH QUESTION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 RESEARCH QUESTION 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 RESEARCH QUESTION 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 RESEARCH QUESTION 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 182 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 APPENDICES A. CAMPER ENTRANCE QUESTIONNAIRE T Ages_ll-15. . 195 B. CAMPER ENTRANCE QUESTIONNAIRE - Ages 8-10 . . 196 C. PARENT ENTRANCE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . 197 D. CAMP COUNSELOR QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 198 E. CAMPER EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE - Ages 8-10. . . . . 199 F. CAMPER EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE - Ages 11-15 . . . . 200 G. PARENT EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . . . . . 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Gender Distribution of Campers . . 46 3.2 Campers-per Cabin. . . . . . . . . 47 3.3 Mean Ages of Campers . . . . . . . 47 3.4 Campers With Previous Organized Camping Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.5 Gender Distribution of Campers (Parent Data) 48 3.6 Mean Ages of Campers (Parent Data) 49 3.7 Campers With Previous Organized Camping Experiences (Parent Data). . . . . 49 3.8 Camp Counselor Age Distribution . . . 49 3.9 Camp Counselor Previous Camping & Staff Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.10 Individual Camp Counselor Previous Camping and Staff Experience . . . . . . 51 3.11 Parent Second Questionnaire Return Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.1 Indicated Choices Made by Campers Concerning Initial Expectations . 66 4.2 Rankings: Initial Expectations of Campers 67 4.3 Indicated Choices Made by Campers With and Without Previous Camping Experience. . 71 4.4 Rankings: Initial Expectations of Campers With Previous Experience and With No Previous Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.5 Indicated Choices Made by Girl and Boy Campers With Previous Camping Experiences and With No Previous Experience . . . . . . . 76 vi Table 4.10 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 Sex-Related Differences in Initial Expectations of Campers with Previous Experience and with No Previous Experience . . Indicated Choices Made by Camp Counselors. . . Rankings: Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions Session by Session. . . A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expectations for Congruence: Raw Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expectations for Congruence A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expectation for Congruence . . . . . . A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expectation for Congruence . . . . . . . . . . Indicated Choices Made by Parents . . . . . . Rankings: Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Comparison of Camper Initial Expectations and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations, Parent and Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions: Raw Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions: Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 77 81 82 86 87 92 93 98 99 102 106 110 111 Table Page 4.19 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . 115 4.20 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . 116 4.21 Indicated Choices Made by Campers Concerning Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . 121 4.22 Rankings: Camper Reported Outcomes. . . . . . 122 4.23 A Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations and Camper Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 4.24 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Reported Outcomes: Raw Scores . . . . . . . . 129 4.25 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Reported Outcomes: Percentages . . . . . . . 130 4.26 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . 135 4.27 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.28 Indicated Choices Made by Parents Concerning Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . 143 4.29 Rankings: Parent Reported Outcomes. . . . . . 144 4.30 A Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations and Parent Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 4.31 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes: Raw Scores . . . . 151 4.32 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes: Percentages . . . . 152 viii 4.35 4.42 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Comparison of Camper Reported Outcomes, Parent Reported Outcomes and Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Camp Counselor Maturational or Historical Change Periods and Camper Initial Expectations . . . . . . A Comparison of Camp Counselor Maturational or Historical Change Periods and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions . . . . . A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Camper Initial Expectations . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Patterns of Change with Reference to Camper Initial Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Parent Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Patterns of Change with Reference to Parent Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 156 157 161 165 170 172 175 176 177 178 Figure 1.1 LIST OF FIGURES The Class Of A Social System . . . . . . . Positive Cycle Of Interpersonal Relations. Negative Cycle Of Interpersonal Relations. The Function Of Intent In Educational Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stake's Model For Processing Of Descriptive Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Camp Counselors Means And Camper Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Of Women And Men Camp Counselor Means And Camper Groups . . . . . . . . Summary Of Camp Counselor Means And Parent Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Women And Men Camp Counselor Means And Parent Groups . . . . . . . . Summary Of Camp Counselor Means And Camper Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . Summary Of Women And Men Camp Counselor Means And Camper Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Of Camp Counselor Means And Parent Reported Outcomes . . . . . . . . Summary Of Women And Men Counselor Means And Parent Reported Outcomes . . . Maturational And Historical Change Periods Page 25 26 29 40 89 94 112 117 132 138 153 159 169 Chapter I PROBLEM Intentions and their fulfillments are a major con- cern of educational effectiveness. In a resident summer camping experience, the participants bring diverse expec- tations, goals, experiences, assumptions, norms, beliefs and world views (Sarbaugh, 1979). Meiland adds: Intentions and purposes are not the only sorts of mental entities or states that are attributed to persons by themselves and others. Confining our attention to those entities and states loosely classified under 'the will', we find desires, likings, cravings, aversions, and delibera- tions, in addition to intentions and purposes. . . . It is clear that intentions and pur- poses play a pervasive role in our mental lives and that many, if not most, of the things that we do are done with certain intentions or for certain purposes (1970, p.1). Maselli, writing of another aspect of intention, argues: Attribution of intent . . . is central to person perception and interpersonal relations. . . . Conditions which facilitate the attribution of intent include personalism, hedonic relevance, power, intimacy, and ascription of responsibility. Attribution (If intent is alternatively described as a logical process of inferences from cues or 2 as 23 more intuitive process based on personal knowledge of one's own intentions (1969, p. 445). These intentions and their fulfillments of the participants come together in ea dynamic way iJ1.a resi- dent summer' canmu Campers bring diverse expectations as to what they hope to do at camp. Along with these diverse expectations, camp counselors have expectations as to camper intentions. These expectations of camp counselors may or may not match camper intentions. The counselors have beliefs about the alterability of camper attitudes, camper potential for benefitting from instruction, and the match between subject matter and camper. A dynamic disequilibrium exists. Getzels and Thelen, describing the image of the classroom, argue: It is not the image of a social system in equilibrium. It is rather the image of a system in motion . . . in dynamic disequilibrium. It is the image (M? a group continually facing emergent complexity and con- flict (if not confusion) and. dealing with these realities, not in terms of sentiment but in terms of what the complexity and conflict suggest about the modifications that have ‘Ua be made in the goals, expectations, needs, and selective perceptions of the teachers and learners (1960, p. 82). Figure 1.1 illustrates Getzels and Thelen's posi- tion on the class as a social system. Dimensions con— tributing to classroom behavior are anthropological, sociological, psychological, and biological in nature. 3 The anthropological dimension. consists cflf ethos, rmnrs, and values. The sociological dimension is institution, role, and expectations. The psychological consists of individual, personality, enui need-dispositions. Organism, constitution, and Emmentialities are the biological dimension. Ethos——————§ Mores s Values | ————9 THE CLASS INSTITiTION —9 RO|LE ———> EXPECTATIONS GOAL AS A ——> GROU’P -———) CLIMATE —————> INTENTIONS ——> SOCIAL SYSTEM I BEHAVIOR ‘9 INDIVIDUAL-—-> PERSONALITY -———-> NEEDS l $ Organisnh——4>Constitution-e»Potentialities from Getzel and Thelen, 1960, p. 80 FIGURE 1.1 THE CLASS OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM Eisner (1969) writes about the exploratory' nature (n? the teacher-student interaction around content. He identifies the role (Hf expressive objectives. An expressive objective does not specify the behavior the student is to acquire after having engaged in one or more learning activities. [U1 expressive: objective describes the educational encounter: identifies the situation in which he is to work, a problem with which he is to cope, a task in which he is to engage, but it does not specify what from that encounter, situation, 4 problem, task, he is to learn. Expressive objectives provide both the student and the teacher with an invita- tion to explore, defer, or focus on issues that are of particular interest to the learner. Expressive objectives are evocative, not prescriptive. The teacher hopes to provide a situation in which the meanings become personalized and. in. which the students produce products that anxa also individualized. Such objectives do not specify what the student is to be able to do after he engages in an educational activity; rather, they identify the type of encounter he is to have. In his 1979 writing, Eisner changes the term to expres- sive outcomes which are the consequences of curriculum activities that are intentionally planned to provide a personal purposing and experiencing. The expectations and intentions of campers, parents and camp counselors affect and are affected by the expectations and intentions of time various significant others. Expectations are not abnormal or unusual; they are common, everyday experiences. bkn: are they typically illogical; usually 'they auxa quite .reasonable and logical inferences based upon observations. The expectations of many people are generally accurate. However, 11) some degree everyone harbors certain incor- rect expectations regarding other people, either because they have not yet encountered contradictory evidence that would make them change their expectations, or 5 because they have failed to notice or have explained away such contradictory evidence. The mission of a resident summer camp has its own legitimacy apart from camper and parent intentions (Hammerman, 1980). However, when campers and parents hold an image of the camp which is at variance with the realization of the camp, the camp is concerned. It suggests some kind of educational corrective towards at least the parent if not the child in terms of what the camp is iknn Since parents are the decision-makers about whether or not their child goes to camp: the camp is interested in understanding what the parents need to know in order to make wise decisions. A focus on the nature of intentions and fulfillments yields an answer to the question about the matter of the rela— tionship between specified objectives, accomplishments, and the fulfillment of images and ideals held by various affected groups. Consequently, educational planning is enhanced. The concern about objectives for camping has been expressed many times and in many ways. Most books in the annals of camping reiterate the importance of identifying definite objectives for the resident summer camp (Hammerman, 1980). In spite of this long-held concern there is; still much confusion about objectives. Camp objectives come in all assorted shapes, kinds, and sizes. The fact that a camp exists at all represents an objective for someone. 1k) take children 1x3 camp can be an objective. To keep campers healthy may be considered an objective. To help them live in a demo- cratic fashion may also be an objective. And, though for decades camping people have been urged to clarify, define, and adopt specific objectives, it is possible to select those which are unattainable, too general or vague to be realized, or which are too superficial to justify the existence of the camp. Further, objec— tives may be expressed or unexpressed, broad or narrow, vague or quite specific, short term or long term. It is possible to go through a whole camping season believing that the objectives were achieved without making a dent in a single one. Why do parents send children to camp? 131 some social circles this is considered "the thing to do" and is accepted as a way of life. To other parents, camping is an opportunity for them to get their children out of the city and into the country -- a chance for better health and greater pleasure for the child. Some parents are looking for some special achievement. They wish their son "to learn to be a man" and to lessen his dependency ties; or to acquire some skills; or learn to play with others. They may wish him to develop good habits. Ikn: still other parents, camping relieves them for a time of the responsibility of supervision. Being rid of the children means a vacation for them (Berg, 1958). Todd gives these goals that parents want camps to achieve in relation to their children. 1. Safety of the child -- kept from accident. 2. Health guarded by proper food and rest, and cleanliness. 3. Reasonable control, not harsh, dictatorial, but set limits to give the child a sense of secur- ity. 4. Some skills achieved, such as being taught to swim. 5. Progress in getting along with others. 6. Learning of some independence (cutting of parental apron strings). 7. Fostering of neatness (which can hardly be achieved at camp without previous patterns taught at home). (1963, p.45). What does the camper want from camp? If he came unwillingly, he probably just wants to go home. However, the child who wants to go to camp looks first and fore- most for fun (Berg, 1958). After fun, the camper may have some other objectives at camp. He may want to be with some particular friend or friends: or perhaps he may just be interested in getting out of the city, which he feels has little to offer him in the way of entertainment. Berg adds: In general, campers do run: consciously seek to learn. hOW' "to :give and take." These are objectives set up for them by adults. It is possible for them to make progress toward these goals without realizing it, and with adequate guidance they may make much progress in the realm of social living; not because they are hoping to improve themselves, but because the group exper- ience itself has been a constructive one (1958, p. 12). What does the camp counselor consider to be the objectives of camp? This depends on the maturity of the counselor (Berg, 1958). If he is self-centered he may think of camp only as a pleasant way for him to spend the summer. If the counselor is interested in children, he or she intends to help’ the camper’ be happy and adequate and to learn how to get along with others. Resident sununer camp objectives point to an educa- tional experience of great potential value. Sharp (1930) saw a relationship between the goals of education as outlined. by Dewey (1902), Dewey (1916), and. Kilpatrick (1927) and the possibility inherent in the camping en- vironment. Ike recognized that camping‘ is ea series of purposeful, related experiences in real life situations, and is therefore an educational process. For Hammerman (1980) and Dustin (1980), the central theme is that some learning makes a deeper impact and is retained longer when a concept or an object is discovered, ob- served, sensed, enui interpreted III the natural setting. 9 Hammerman (1980), looking back at the last fifty years of camping, claims: 1. School camping' was an "alternative" to the "traditional" curriculum pattern long before the populariza- tion of time term, "alternative education." 2. .As 21 curriculum innovation, the resident outdoor education exper- ience stressed "holism" along with teaching strategies that were com- patible with this new teaching- learning' environment: e.g., 'problem- solving: exploratory self-discovery; and inquiry approaches to learning. 3. With "relationships" as the fourth "R" of the curriculum, these pro- grams provided an opportunity for pupils to see their teachers as "human beings"; to enhance their own peer relationships; and to become better acquainted_ with their own "self-concept." As with any other learning experience, statement of intentions are a valid and vital part of resident summer camping programs. Eisner states: "No concept is more central to curriculum planning than the concept of objectives" (1979, p. 93). Curriculum theorists point to the important function of objectives. Herrick states: 1, Objectives define the direction of educational development. 2, Objectives help select desirable learning experiences. 3, Objectives define the scope of an educational program. 4, Objectives help) define the emphasis to be made in an educational program. 10 5. Objectives form one of the major bases for evaluation (1965, pp. 91—96). Ragan and Shepherd point out: 1. Objectives define time direction 1J1 which i1: is desirable for growth to take place. 2. Objectives provide ea basis for the selection of learning exper- iences. 3. Objectives provide ea basis for evaluation (1977, pp. 327, 328). PURPOSE The descriptive research looks at 13KB relationship between intentions of campers and intention expectations of parents and camp counselors for the camper and ful— fillments. Intention expectations are inferences that parents and camp) counselors make about the intentions of campers. It should be noted that expectations for individual campers are not merely a function of per- ceived ability. Parent and camp counselor beliefs about the alterability of camp attitudes, the camper's potential for benefitting from instruction, and the match between subject matter and learner can also in- fluence expectations. Camp counselors may have more general expectations as ‘well. ‘These expectations can relate to their camp group as a whole, the subject matter, camper socialization and group work management. All these more general expectations are potentially related to those expectations concerning future intentions 11 that camp counselors hold about specific campers. By converging on the intentions and the fulfillments of the several sets of expectations, an answer is gained as to what these intentions are and how they differ across these groups. Also, to what extent are the various important significant others in the lives of each other in the situation assuming the same thing about the learning experience. A better understanding of what similarities and dissimilarities exist between camper, parent and camp counselor expectations and the camp's potentialities for fulfilling those ckdectives enables camp nanagement to design into its programming a more precise input to the parents about the nature of the camping experi- ence and expectations that are reasonable. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The descriptive research consists of two studies which ultimately converge the points of information that. are most feasible to compare» One study' is an individual camper' unit analysis which. looks at (camper expectations and parent and counselor estimates of camper expectations. In other words, it is the capacity of members of two) groups (parents and counselors) to understand the initial expectations. and ‘their fulfill- ments of members of another group (campers). Comparison for similarity, congruence, and convergence are made concerning the three sets of significant persons. 12 The second study looks at the maturation of counse- lor perspectives across several weeks of the camping experience. By looking at. what happens to counselor perceptions, it is possible to say that their percep— tions of expectations shift over a period of time. Possible shifts could be in the direction of camper expectations, parent expectations, or neither. The descriptive research is based on the following research questions: 1. What is the nature and extent of the congruence of the expec- tations of campers and camp coun- selors at a given camp? 2. To what extent are parent expecta- tions consonant with camper ex- pectations and camp counselor expectations? 3. To what extent is the fulfillment pattern of campers convergent on the images and expectations held by time camp counselors? 4. To what extent do parents report outcomes that are concurrent with expectations of campers and camp counselors? 5. To ‘what extent do parents report outcomes that are concurrent with camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations? 6. In what ways do camp counselor expectations change over time (mature through experience)? Is the pattern of change in the maturing process in the direction of camper expectations or parent expectations, or is it neither? IMPORTANCE The energy for the descriptive research has to do with the matching problem. How does one match so 13 as to meet? The literature suggests that if people come into any learning situation with mismatched objec- tives to the functional "built. in" objectives of the educational delivery, there is at least going to be some slippage as the new set of objectives gets ironed out in terms of which one of those sets is the dominant set and whether or not there is going to be a hybrid. Taba, writing about ndsmatched objectives, states: Somehow, sound education must build a bridge between existing moti- vations and concerns of the learners and the essentials of education. The things that for one reason or another constitute the "musts" or "essentials" can be achieved through a range of concrete activities and content, through a multitude of de- tails which can be selected according to existing interests and conscious needs, choosing content that either meets already existing interest, or for which interest can be devel- oped. This makes it possible to use existing (student) interest as gateways to learning. It seems, . . . the demands of essential, significant subject matter and . . . needs and interests of the students are not necessarily in conflict. As one differentiates the level of choice, it is possible to "fix” the (essential things to be learned and allow the details through which to learn them to be determined by student interest, thus providing, for both (1962, p. 289). McKeachie g; _a__1_. are also concerned with discrep— ancy of goals, especially when it came to less than convincing results for their study on teacher effec- tiveness. l4 . . that the major slippage in our validity studies is in the differ- ing goals of teachers and students. Students come to a class with many different personal objectives for that class. Some of these objec- tives may coincide with those of the instructor, but the overlap be- tween instructor and student goals or between the goals of differing students is certainly far from perfect. (1971, p. 444). With the camp experience being of short. duration it is of great importance to reduce the discrepancy that is possible as campers have the problem of settling into what is really going to happen. Given the camp whether or not it is typical, here is what can be learned in one instance about the pre- sence or absence: of dissonance, the convergences that occur, and the development of counselors and the matur- ing of their expectations. All of this will build a knowledge base so that camps can do a more effective job of communicating about. what the camp» is jprepared to do. Also, by taking account of what it is that campers are hoping to do, adjustments within the camping structure can be made that move the camp management closer to what those expectations tend to be. ASSUMPTIONS Three main assumptions guide the study. First, it is important to identify and understand intentions of campers and intention expectations of parents and camp counselors in designing and implementing camp 15 programs. Second, discrepancy of intentions and their fulfillments between campers, parents, and camp counse- lors, limit the overall effectiveness of the camp pro— gram in contributing to the growth and development of campers. Third, camping is an example of nonformal education where people "vote with their feet." GENERALIZABILITY The nature of the sample places limits on the generalizability of findings. Since the sample is not randomly selected, it is not possible to say with certainty that the parents, campers and counselors, are representative of larger groups. Therefore, the research is applicable to this particular camp program. However, the findings might suggest directions for potentially fruitful research in similar and related areas . LIMITATIONS The research has three main limitations. IFirst, as mentioned earlier, the sample places limits on the research, thus the findings are not necessarily general- izable. Second, the research does not identify absolute cause and effect relationships. The research is descrip- tive in nature. However, the literature does suggest cause and effect relationships. Third, the research uses an adapted instrument designed specifically for the research. The adapted instrument is relied upon only to 16 explore trends and possible relationships. DEFINITION OF TERMS Camping. A. sustained experience which provides 51 creative, recreational, and educational opportunity in group living in the out-of- doors. It utilizes trained leadership and the resources (Hi the natural surrounding to contribute to each camper ' 5 mental , physi- cal, social, and spiritual growth. Resident summer camp. A youth camp operating Camp on a permanent campsite for four or more consecutive twenty-four hour periods during the months of June, July and August. Counselor. An individual who has a super- visory role with campers , and who is a high school graduate (n: is at least eighteen years old and has previous experience in camping and the supervision of children. Intention. Intention is used. as a synonym for intent in this research. Intent is an act or emotion of the mind that seldom is capable of direct or positive observation or proof (Words and Phrases, 1958). Intent is a mental or psychological state and can be evidenced by words or conduct of the person who claimed to have entertained them. 17 Congruence. Congruence does not indicate that outcomes are reliable or valid, but that what was intended did occur (Stake, 1967, p. 539). To be fully congruent the intended outcomes would have to come to pass, which seldom happens. SUMMARY A major concern for resident summer camps is the explicitness of communicating about what the camp is prepared to do. Intentions and their fulfillments are an integral part of educational effectiveness. Chapter 2[ presented time need for 21 better understanding of camper expectations and parent and camp counselors' estimates of camper initial expectations, with congruen— cy being a major concern. Mismatched objectives can lead to some slippage, until the new set of objectives is achieved in terms of which one of those sets (camper or camp) is the dominant set and whether or not there is going to be a hybrid. The research questions center on comparisons. for’ similarity, congruence, aumi conver- gence of objectives of the three sets of significant persons. In Chapter II a review of the literature is present- ed concerning intentions, educational objectives, and camping as education. The literature surveyed is repre- sentative, not exhaustive. In Chapter III the specific 18 steps in conducting the research are described: design, instrument, subjects, and data collection procedure. D1 Chapter :nz the findings of iflma descriptive research are reported. IFinally, 1J1 Chapter \/ conclusions and recommendations for further study are presented. Chapter II PRECEDENT LITERATURE The chapter focuses on the precedents in litera- ture that provide a conceptual framework for the role that intentions play :hi educational effectiveness. The overview of intention is presented from various sources: philosophy, social psychology, communication, and educa- tion. To complete the understanding of the purpose for the research 21 review is; presented concerning educational objectives, campimg as education, and nethodological precedents. INTENTIONS AND PHILOSOPHY The intentions of campers, parents and camp counse- lors is based on the premise that reasons for action in a particular situation exist in a person's mental state which can result in intentional actions toward somebody or something. Anscombe states: Ancient euui medieval philosophers -- or some of them at any rate -- regarded ii: evident, demonstrable, that human beings must act with some end in view, and even with some one end in View. The argument for this strikes us as rather strange. Can't a man just do what he does, a great deal of the time? He may or may not have a reason or a purpose: and if he has a reason or a 19 20 purpose, it in turn may be what he happens to want; why demand a reason or purpose for it? And why must we at last arrive at some one purpose that has an intrinsic finality about it? The old arguments were designed to show that the chain could not go on forever: they pass us by, because we are not inclined to think it must even begin: and it surely stops where it stops, no need for it to stop at a purpose that looks intrinsically final, one and the same for all actions. In fact there appears to be an illicit transition 1J1 Aristotle, from 'all chains must stop somewhere', to 'there is somewhere where all chains must stop' (1966, p. 34). The most common philosophic approach to the study of intention 1h; ontological (n: metaphysical 131 nature, viewing intentions as a predominantly mental act. Aquila (1977) and Ross (1978) are concerned mainly with the conscious awareness of one's own intent and subsequent relationships between intentions and actions. Meiland (1970) presents a useful distinction between nonpurposive and purposive intentions as well as those which are non-conditional or conditional. These categor— ies suggest time, symmetry and congruence as integral components of intention. Matejeko's phenomenological approach to intention presents another perspective. From the dialectical viewpoint, social life is first of all a process of becoming, not just of being. The human psyche is an active element and not only a passive receptor of the external world. . . . thought and activity pentrate one another. We . .. . impose our own order upon reality which 1J1 its true nature .is chaotic auui multidimensional. 21 The mind selects only certain charac- teristics of phenomena as significant; it finds cultural meaning in only a segment of reality; it falsifies the world at the very least by omis- sion. Culture, then, turns ‘upon mind and perpetuates the illusion (1975, p. 11). He makes in“) key assumptions. First, people have only a limited capacity to process the reality around them. Second, because of this limitation, people must be selective about what messages they decide to process, which tends to be a culturally learned perceptual behav- ior. The idea of perceived relationship and intent (Sarbaugh, 1979) supports the notion of perceiving where one stands in a social setting as a determining factor 111 social action. In 21 camp setting, conflicts can arise if the camper is not made aware of the intent behind camp objectives which may be unfamiliar or puzzling to him/her. The philosophic writings on intentions are preoccu- pied with how individuals form or control intentions in the role of actor and overlook the fundamental dis- tinction of people being both an actor and observer (Thomas and Pondy, 1977). INTENTIONS AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY To make sense out of the complexities of human behavior, peOple are generally held responsible for their behavior. Intentions are attributed to them in order to help explain the reasons for their behaviors. 22 Bronfenbrener (1964) enui Heider (1958a, l958b0 suggest that attribution of intent is the essential link between observable acts and non-observable inferences about a person's disposition towards another person. For Masselli and Altrocchi (1969), attribution of intent often contributes to perception of the social world as more predictable and to socially appropriate behavior but can also lead to behavior which is destructive to self and others. It is plausible in a camping situatkm when campers are faced with a great amount of potentially confusing information or acts contradictory to their expectations, there might be a tendency to attribute blame to the most obvious cause of this discomfort or confusion, the camp counselor. The process and logic involved in this type of attribution of intent appears to be based on the con- cepts (Hf covariation, configuration, and inference (Kelley, 1973). The man in the street and the scientist share the same general approach to the interpretation of behavior. Both assume that B = f (P,E). Behavior is a function of the person and the environment. (Hun; behavior is assumed to convey information about both P and E. . . . An observer of a person's behavior can make judgments about several different (though interrelated) aspects of its meaning: a) the positive or negative quality of the consequences of that behavior, b) the specific nature of the motivation that underlies it (the P factor because there is always some kind of P involvement). and c) the main type of cause(s) 23 involved in the behavior (the alloca- tion between P & E, the stability of causal factors) (Kelley and Thi- baut, 1978, p. 214). This type of inferential logic is important for the understanding of how each set of significant persons (camper, parent, camp counselor) views the intentions of each other. For example, camp counselors tend to make inferences about the intentions of the campers based on unfamiliar situational or communication cues and on the false assumption that the campers should act and think in the same way as the camp counselor. Bar-Tal (1978) suggests that. perceptions. of .Lntentions could be one of those casual factors that are used as excuses for success or failure in 21 camper's jper— formance. However, Maselli and Altrocchi (1969) add a qualifier by making the distinction that people differ in the degree to which they attribute intent to others, and in the degree to which intention is attributed to them. INTENTIONS AND COMMUN ICATION Communication literature also contributes to a needed functional knowledge base so that camps can do a more explicit job in communicating about what the camp is prepared to do. Intentions are communicated in various ways. Schmuck and Schmuck (1971) hold that communication of intentions is a reciprocal communication process. 24 Communication is seen as emanating from individual needs, motives and desires and involves sending messages about personal intentions, whether they are concerned with control, information, love or anger. Effective communication exists between two people when the receiv- er interprets the sender's message in the same way the sender intended it. Congruence of message is depen- dent upon the matching of intentions, behavior and interpretations. Figures 2.1 anui 2.2 illustrate Schmuck and Schmuck's position. In most transactions, intent is not explicitly stated. It generally is inferred from prior and present cues emitted by the other party. The meaning derived from those cues then forms the basis for the 'perceived intent', which in turn sets the tone for the communica- tion. Sarbaugh (1979) introduces this notion of "perceived intent", defining it operationally in three dimensions: intent to share or help, intent to ignore, or intent to disrupt, dominate or injure. Using a transactional analysis theoretical orientation, he approaches inten- tions of interacting parties from introspection about his own intent in various situations. Ike offers the following six categories of intent: 1. To share experience, beliefs, feelings and materials. 2. To help with a task, including dealing with feelings and questions. 25 l Psychological Processes of A Accepting of self; feels competent 2 Behaviors of A and secure. Intends Accepts others. pleasant Helpful, open, pleas- ‘ ant, nonthreatening I ----------- behaviors. reciprocal Receives positive interaction reflections. l I Posi- tive Perceptions of Be— Behavioral Output Cycle havior ‘L of In- terper- Behav1ora1 Output Perception of'Be: 33?:l I 7 hav1or tions Accepting helpful Expects friendly . . Intends . sharing, dialogue helpful behav1ors; , to be behaV1ors. helpful, """""" to reelpro- Feels good about cate. self. Behavior of Others Psychological Proces— ses of Others LI 3 from Schmuck and Schmuck, 1971, p. 52 FIGURE 2.1 POSITIVE CYCLE OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 26 l 2 Psychological Processes Behaviors of A of A Ambivalent self-feeling Competitive control ’ - Ambivalent feeling Intends to lin threatenin be— toward others, and control or 5’ 5 insecurity hav1ors accompan1ed - ‘ . . Fear of being rejected. ’ by overt hOStlllty or retreating, sub- - ------------ withdraw. . , . miss1ve, intently . hostile behaviors. Defens1veness I l Nega- . . tive Perceptions of Be— Behav1oral Output Cycle havmrs.) J’ of In- T . 4x terper- Behavioral Output Perceptions of Behave sonal iors Rela— tions Rejecting behaviors Intendsto Expects unfriendly that might be 4r and rejecting be— fighting, ignoring, haviors. submit, sub- vert, or ignore. or hostile follow— ing. Negative evaluation of A's behavior. Self under threat, feelings of low influence. Behavior of Others Psychological Proces- ses of Others 4 3 from Schmuck and Schmuck, 1971, p. 53 FIIHJRE312.2 NEGATIVE CYCLE OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 27 3. To ignore or avoid the other person, including messages. 4. To disrupt a transaction, or the efforts to establish inter— dependent activity. 5. To dominate a relationship through 'put. down', manipulating’ power, status. . . . 6. To injure the other person or group physically, socially or psychologically. This would include attacks on status, integri- ty, self-concept . . . (Sarbaugh, 1979, p. 33). When two parties have the same positive intent in engaging in a transaction, the intent is more likely to be realized. Conversely, a fairly high probability of frustration exists when the intents of the two parties are not the same or both are negative. Also, the intent of the participants is more likely to be known if parti- cipants share a homogeneity of code systems, world views, values, role expectations and other normative beliefs. Sarbaugh (1979) argues further that there is an integral connection between perceived intent and per- ceived relationships. He suggests that one of the principle variables which determines degrees of common- ality 111 any communication interaction, is time partici- pant's perceptions of their relationship and intent. "perceived relationship" is defined as including per- ceptions of feelings, goal orientation and the structur- al configuration of the relationship. 28 Both Schmuck and Schmuck (1971) and Sarbaugh (1979) acknowledge the reciprocal role between actor and observ- er when communicating intent. INTENTIONS AND EDUCATION Axinn states that education must take into account the essential function of the intent of teachers and learners. He states ". . . that both (intent of learners and teachers) are essential to the educational process and that the importance of neither can be dismissed if the vital and central dynamic of that process is to be appreciated and preserved, let alone improved" (1974, p. 13). Figure 2.3 illustrates Axinn's paradigm that identifies educational outcomes as either intended or unintended and characterizes these according to the various educational systems: formal, nonformal, informal and incidental. 29 [SystemSj "Teacher" erSpectlve INTENDED UNINTENDED "Learner" Perspective Formal (school) INTENDED Non-formal In-formal (Out-of-school) UNINTENDED In-formal Batic (Incidental) from Axinn, 1974, p. 9 FIGURE 2.3 THE FUNCTION OF INTENT IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES There is rm) consensus concerning' which. term. pre— cisely expresses educational intentions. Aim, objective, purpose, goal, outcome, and intention, are sometimes used synonymously, however, with varying degrees of specificity. The article on objectives in the Encyclo- pedia of Educational Research states that "the terms themselves have no universally accepted definition, so discourse about objectives occurs on several levels 30 of generality", (Ebel, 1969, p. 908). Ammons (1969) reports five conclusions resulting from her review of research concerning educational objectives. 1. The terhl .itself (educational objectives) has no universally accepted definition, so discourse about objectives occurs upon several levels of generality. 2. A statement of objectives or a recommended methodology for determining objectives is almost always couched in value terms, which renders empirical research in the classical sense difficult. 3. The question of what objectives ought to be sought has a history which dates back at least to Plato. 4. Pronouncements about cmfiectives are more or less explicitbranalyzed and justified opinions. 5. Studies of £1 largely empirical nature in relation to objectives are few compared to the number of statements (n3 objectives based upon individual or group opinions. Herrick expresses the same sentiment: The words 'aim', 'goals', 'purposes', 'outcomes', as well as 'objectives' are found in the literature. We group all of these terms under the general heading of 'objectives' and recognize that the same objectives may exist on different levels of generality auui specificity without going to the trouble of calling one an 'overall goal' and the other an 'aim' (1965, p. 89). 31 Gwynn and Chase also use the word "objective" inter- changeably' with "aims" and "purposes." Their sources for objectives are the ". . . basic principles of ed- ucational philosophy and the basic purposes of the teacher" (1969, p. 220). Stake expresses a similar concern, even though he prefers the word "intent": I consider 'goals', 'objectives', and 'intents' txn be synonymous. I use the category title, 'Intents' because many educators now equate 'goals' and 'objectives' with 'in- tended student outcomes' (1967, p. 530). Those theorists who proposed that objectives can only, and must, occur in specific behavior terms, prefer to define objectives by giving their character- istics. Such a definition as offered by Anderson, et sun .is representative cfif this position. They advo- cate the following: 1. (Objectives) specify 111 observ- able behavioral terms what the student will be able to do at the end of the lesson. 2. (Objectives) contain a statement of conditions under which terminal behavior is expected. 3. (Objectives) contain ea standard of performance (1969, p.46). It is clear that many terms are acceptable for describing educational intentions. The term most often 32 used is "objective." It stands out as the most frequently used term in the work of Bobbitt (1918), Tyler (1949), Tyler (1967), Bloom (1956), and Mager (1962). In spite of the apparent difficulty in establishing a universal definition, or agreeing upon one set of terms, the idea that objectives or aims and intents are necessary and desirable, seems to receive little dispute. While the logic of the approach is irrefutable, the resolution of the nature of the objectives used remains very much in conflict (Popham, 1969). One position concerning the nature of educational objectives proposes that objectives must be expressed exclusively 1J1 behavioral terms. Tyler (1949) proposes that only when objectives are stated behaviorly, is it possible to evaluate outcomes objectively. Mager (1969) is in agreement. He insists that teachers are better able to meet specific goals, and. can. evaluate objectively only if goals have been written explicitly in terms of observable, terminal behaviors. Theorists such as Atkin (1968), Eisner (1967), MacDonald (1965), and MacDonald (1971) have countered that the behavioral objectives approach has serious limitations. Atkin declares: "if identification of all worthwhile outcomes in behavioral terms comes to be commonly accepted, then it is inevitable that, over time, the curriculum will tend to emphasize those elements which have thus been identified. Important outcomes detected with great difficulty and translated only 33 rarely into behavioral terms begin to atrophy. They disappear because we spend the time allotted to us in teaching explicitly for the more readily specifiable learnings to which we have been directed" (1968, p. 28). Eisner (1967) feels that there are at least four limitations to educational objectives. The rational approach to objectives has not sufficiently emphasized the extent to which the prediction of educational outcomes can not be made with accuracy; has not discussed the ways in which the subject matter affects precision in stating educational objectives: has confused the use of educational objectives as a :standard. for measurement when in some areas it can only be used as a criterion for judgment; has not distinguished between the logical requirements of relating means to ends in the curriculum as a product and the psychological conditions useful for constructing curriculums. Following the same concern, MacDonald asserts: "There is another view (other than behavioral), however, which has both scholarly and experiential referents. The view would state that our objectives are known to us in a complete sense only after the completion of an act of instruction. No matter what we thought we were attempting to do, we can only know ‘what we wanted to accomplish after the fact. Objectives by this rationale are heuristic devices which provide initiating sequences, which become altered in the flow of instruction" (1965, p. 38). 34 CAMPING AS EDUCATION Several researchers state that the elements of a philosophical basis for camping can be found in the doctrines (MS Comenius, Rousseau, and Pestalozzi (Hammer- man, 1980). Comenius was a strong advocate of sensory learning who believed that the child should experience the actual object of study before reading about it. He thought that the use of senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching -- are the avenues through which children are to come into contact with the natural world. Rousseau carried out the ideas of Comenius. He believed that physical activity was very important in the education of a child. They are curious he claimed, and this curiosity should be ‘utilized. to the fullest. Rousseau preached that education should be more sensory and rational, less literary and linguistic. Rather than learning ifixnn books, children should learn through direct. experience. Pestalozzi. urged teachers 1x) take their pupils out. of the» classroom. HAM; child. should be led out into nature and taught on the hilltops and in the valleys, because he will listen better and have a sense of freedom that will give him strength to over- come difficulties. In these hours of freedom outside he should be taught by nature rather than by the teacher. Dewey (1902) advocated that experiences of all kinds should 1x3 included 131 the curriculum. Educators should know how to utilize the child's surroundings -- physical, 35 natural, social -- in a manner that would result in significant learning experiences. He sought to free the learner and schools from the traditional educational practices of the time. He worked to unify the apparent separation of school and society, learning and doing, and the child and the curriculum. He believed that if the curriculum were more closely related to the child's daily life in his community, dealing with real- istic concerns that were important to lrhn, 51 natural correlation would take place among the various subject matters. Kilpatrick (1927) states: "When we consider the kinds of schools demanded, three things stand out. First, it must be a school of life, of actually exper- iencing. Second, it must be a place where pupils are active, where pupils' enterprises form the typical unit of learning procedure, for purposeful activity is the typical unit of the worthy life wherever lived. Third, there must be teachers who . . . see and know that growing is growing only as it leads to ever-widening effectual control. . . 3' Many of these early philoso- phies and concepts are manifested in camping practices that emerged during the pre-l930 period. The American Camping Association list of objectives supports the idea of camping as education: 1. To provide each camper with an opportunity for wholesome fun and adventure in a safe and 36 supervised outdoor program. 2. To help develop a concept of safe and healthful living by stressing wholesome daily health habits: by stressing safety in camp skills: by offering a chance for increasing' strengths, vitality and endurance; and by fostering freedom from mental tensions. 3. To contribute to the development of a sense of 'at-homeness' in the natural world by . . . an appreciation of the world of nature, . . . a sense of responsi- bility for conservation of natural resources, and by increasing the ability to use basic camping skills. 4. To increase 21 camper's concept of spiritual meanings and values through . . . a kinship with and security in an orderly uni- verse, . . . a keener sense of aesthetit: appreciation, . . an understanding and appreciation of people of other religions, cultures, nationalities, and races. 51 To encourage the development of skills and knowledges that may contribute to wholesome re— creation during later years. 6. To contribute to the development of the individual through, adjust- ment to group living in a demo- cratic setting by instilling in him a sense of the worth of each individual, by helping him to function effectively in a democratic society, and by helping him to develop a sense of social understanding <16 responsibility (1975, p. 3). IMPL I ED VALU ES Intentions held by persons of the significant 37 sets presume values concerning what camping should be, lunv it should function, and what counselors should teach. Each group has images and ideals concerning camping. Dissimilarity of intentions at a point of controversy and contention could be symptoms of more deep-seated value differences. Eisner states: The content and aims of school programs have long been the subject of debate. In these debates, differences seldom emerge in the form of abstract issues or bold-face confrontations of compet- ing ideologies. Most often they emerge in the form of differences about specific practical matters: Should children be given letter grades? . . . should the three "Rs" be empha- sized, and should children be kep back if they do not achieve grade- level standards? Although the arguments of these ques- tions elicit seldom broadens into an examination of principles, it is important for those concerned with designing educational programs to see behind the issues, to go behind the immediate controversy, to penetrate the current debate in order to locate the values and premises behind the questions (1979, p. 70). In formal education, Eisner (1979) identifies five basic orientations to the curriculum. The academic rationalism orientation argues that the major role of the school is to foster intellectual growth of the student in those subject areas most. worthy' of study. The nature of educational objectives for this orientation focuses on the development of rationality. Outcomes are the cultivation of certain aptitudes and qualities of mind, such as the ability to think effectively, 38 to communicate thought, to make relevant judgments, and to discriminate among values. The second orientation focuses on the belief that schooling should foster the student's cognitive processes. (Hue major functions of the school are to help an individual learn how to learn and to provide opportunities to use and strengthen various intellectual faculties he possesses. Educational objectives according to this orientation should be derived from the many intellectual operations. The major outcome is the development of intellectual power rather than the giving of information or a body of ideas. The third orientation conceives of curriculum planning as a technique undertaking. It is concerned with the technology by which knowing and learning is facilitated. The focus is less on the learner or even on his relationship to the material than on the more practical problem of efficiently packaging and presenting the material to him. In this vieW' a high priority is placed on specification of objectives. It is through specification that performance can be evaluated and a standard set. Sometimes the substance of the objective does not receive primary attention; the main concern is whether it has been stated properly. The fourth orientation emphasizes the primacy of personal meaning and the responsibility of educational institutions to make such meaning possible. The teacher-pupil re- lationship is emphasized. In this orientation educational 39 objectives should center on education that helps people become what they can and deeply need to become. The fifth orientation argues that educational institutions are to serve society. Their mission is to locate social needs, or at least sensitivity to social needs, and to provide programs to meet the identified needs. This View looks at society for the determination of educational objectives. METHODOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS The method developed for analyzing the data collected for the study is based upon the countenance model of evaluation constructed by Stake (1967). He adds complex- ity to the conception of evaluation by positing three major variables subject to both description and judgmental portrayal: "antecedents", "transactions", and "outcomes", and finding the congruence between intents and observa- tions. The format for processing these data is repre- sented in Figure 2.4. The data are congruent if what is intended actually happens. To be fully congruent the intended antecedents, transactions, and outcomes would have to come to pass. This seldom happens -- and often should compare the cells containing Intents and Observations, to note the discrepancies, and to describe the amount of congru- ence for that row. Congruence does not indicate that outcomes are reliable or valid, but that what is intended did occur. The descriptive study deals mainly with 40 Intended Observed ’ Congruence Antecedents Antecedents Logical Empirical Contingency Contingency Intended Observed Congruence I Transactions Transactions ’1‘ 1‘ Logical Empirical Contingency Contingency Intended Observed Congruence I Outcomes Outcomes from Stake, 1967, p. 532 FIGURE 2.4 STAKE'S MODEL FOR PROCESSING OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA 41 the congruence between the bottom two cells of the Stake model: Intended outcomes and Observed outcomes. SUMMARY The preceding review of precedents in literature provides a conceptual framework for the role that in- tentions play in educational effectiveness. First, there is support for the premise that intentions do exist and play a pervasive role in a person's mental state. Philosophers have argued for its existence. Second, for social psychologists, intentions are attri- buted to people in order to help explain reasons for their behaviors. Third, some communication theorists acknowledge the reciprocal role between actor and ob- server 1J1 communicating intentt Fourth, although there is no consensus concerning which term precisely expresses educational intentions, educators support the position that educational intentions are essential to the educa- tional process. Fifth, the literature supports camping as an1 educational experience. Sixth, educational the- orists presume that dissimilarity of intentions are possibly indicative of more deep-seated value differences. Seventh, Stake's model provides the methodological precedent for the descriptive research. Chapter III PROCEDURE The descriptive research centers on intentions and their fulfillments. In particular, it obtains data from three different sets of significant persons directly related to ea resident summer camp -"- campers, parents, and camp counselors. The research questions deal with the discrepancies among intentions and their fulfillments held by these several different sets. 1. What is the nature and extent of congruence of camper initial expectations and camp counselor intention expectations at a given camp? 1.1 What do campers want to do in camp? 1.2 Do these camper pre-camp choices vary for each new group of campers? 1.3 Do first-time campers have different pre- camp choices than returning campers? 1.4 Is there any sex-related difference in camper pre-camp choices? 1.5 What experiences do camp counselors think campers want to have at camp? 1.6 Do the choices made by camp counselors concerning camper pre-camp choices vary 42 43 across sessions? 1.7 Is there any sex-related difference in camp counselor intention expectations? (R) what extent aura parent intention expectations consonant with camper initial expectations and camp counselor intention expectations? 2.1 What experiences (h) parents think their child wants to have at camp? 2.2 Do these choices made by parents concerning camper initial expectations vary session to session? 2.3 Do camper initial expectations vary from group to group? 2.4 Do individual (Rump counselor intention expectations vary session to session? To what extent is the fulfillment pattern of campers convergent on the intention expectations held by the camp counselors? 3.1 Do campers' pre—camp choices actually happen at camp? 3.2 Are camper outcomes for each new group of campers similar? 3.3 Do camper outcomes match camp counselor intention expectations? 3.4 Are there trends in fulfillment patterns of the campers? 3.5 Do these trends in fulfillment patterns vary session to session? 44 To what extent do parents reports outcomes that .are concurrent with initial expectations of campers and intention expectations of camp coun- selors? 4.1 What experiences do parents report their child talked about as being worthwhile? 4.2 Do these reported outcomes of parents vary from group to group? 4.3 Are parent reported outcomes similar to camper initial expectations? 4.4 Are parent reported outcomes similar to camp counselor intention expectations? To ‘what extent. do parents report outcomes that are concurrent with camper reported outcomes and camp counselor intention expectations? 5.1 What similarities exist between parent reported outcomes and camper reported out- comes and camp counselor intention expec- tations? 5.2 Do the similarities between parent reported outcomes and camper reported outcomes vary session to session? In what ways do camp counselor intention expecta- tions change over time (mature through experience)? Is the pattern of change in the maturing process in the direction of camper initial expectations or parent intention expectations or is it neither? 6.1 Are there systematic changes in the camp 45 counselors' intention expectations over time? Do they change or not? 6.2 Is there any gender-related difference in this pattern? 6.3 Is there a direction in the pattern of change? 6.4 Is the direction in the pattern of change toward camper initial expectations? 6.5 Is the direction in the pattern of change toward parent intention expectations? SUBJECTS The descriptive research was conducted at Camp Roger, located in Kent County, Michigan. Camp Roger is a religious camp, owned and operated by the Christian Youth Camp Association. The Board of Directors are a group of Christian businessmen, doctors, lawyers, educa— tors, and other professionals who are dedicated. to of- fering children a Christian camping experience. The camp's membership is with American Camping Association, Michigan Section; it is accredited in Administration, Health, Safety, Personnel, and Program. Campers are accepted regardless of creed, sex, race, color or national origins. Camp Roger has min- istered to thousands of boys and girls, ages eight to fifteen, since 1941. Though the range of socio-eco— nomic backgrounds of campers varies, the majority 46 come from. middle class, suburban homes. The largest percentage of campers come from the state of Michigan, with the remaining from other contiguous states and Canada. The three groups of campers selected total 383. Of this total, 216 are girls and 167 are boys. Table 3.1 gives the gender distribution group by group. Table 3.1 Gender Distribution of Campers SESSION I II III Total GIRLS 69 77 70 216 BOYS 55 38 74 167 ALL CAMPERS 124 115 144 383 Each cabin had about the same number of campers. Table 3.2 illustrates time distribution. Groups I and III are similar, while Group II has the greatest dis- similarity. Some cabins had two camp counselors. The camp counselor/camper ratio is 1:7 for Group I, 1:6 for Group II, and 1:8 for Group III. Most of the campers came from the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Ninety-eight percent of the campers were affiliated with Protestant denominations. The campers range in age from eight to fifteen. Table 3.3 shows the mean. age for each. of the three camper groups. In all three camper groups, the girls were slightly older. The ages of the girls, as well as the boys, were similar across the three groups. 47 Table 3.2 Campers-per-Cabin NUMBER SESSION OF CABINS MEAN MEDIAN MODE I GIRLS 6 11. 11. 11. BOYS 5 11. ll. 11. II GIRLS 6 12. l3. 13. BOYS 5 7 . ‘ 8 . 8 . III GIRLS 6 ll. 12. 12. BOYS 6 12. 12. 12. Table 3.3 Mean Ages of Campers SESSION I II III GIRLS 11.26 10.93 10.81 BOYS 10.68 10.31 10.05 ALL CAMPERS 11.00 10.73 10.41 Table 3.4 presents the percentages of campers with previous organized camping experience. Girls con- sistently have the highest percentage for previous organized camping experience across the three camper groups. 48 Table 3.4 Campers With Previous Organized Camping Exper1ences SESSION I II III GIRLS 59.42% 64.93% 50.00% BOYS 52.72 47.36 32.43 ALL CAMPERS 56.45 59.13 40.97 Some of the research questions ask for comparison of camper and parent data. Only the campers for which parent information is available are used for analysis. The total of parent sets is 162, with 48, 46, and 68 being the breakdown for each respective group. Based on this information the camper distribution data follows. Of the 162 campers, 76 are girls and 86 are boys. Table 3.5 gives the gender distribution group by group. Table 3.5 Gender Distribution of Campers (Parent Data) SESS ION I I I I I I TOTAL GIRLS 19 26 31 76 BOYS 29 20 37 86 ALL CAMPERS 48 46 68 162 The camper mean age for each of the three groups is shown in Table 3.6. Girls are slightly older than boys across the three camper groups. 49 Table 3.6 Mean .Agescflf Campers (Parent. Data) SESSION I II III GIRLS 11.05 10.53 10.64 BOYS 10.72 10.00 9.86 ALL AGES 10.85 10.30 10.22 The percentage: of campers ‘with. previous organized camping experience is shown in Table 3.7. The resident summer camp has seventeen camp counse— lors, nine are men of college age and eight are women of college age. Tables 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 give the camp counselor age, previous camping and staff exper- ience data. Much similarity exists between men and women in these three areas. Table 3.7 Campers With Previous Organized Camping Experiences (Parent Data) SESSION I II III GIRLS 47.36% 69.23% 54.83% BOYS 58.62 50.00 27.02 ALL CAMPERS 54.16 60.86 39.70 Table 3.8 Camp Counselor Age Distribution MEAN MEDIAN MODE AVERAGE YEARS BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL WOMEN 19.75 20 20 2.87 MEN 19.44 19 19 2.44 50 Table 3.9 Camp Counselor Previous Camping & Staff Experience % With Previous % With Previous Camping Experience Staff Experience WOMEN 87.50% 50.00% MEN 88.88 55.55 All the camp counselors attend the same college with the exception of two, camp counselors E and M. All have the same church denomination affiliation with the exception of one, camp counselor 1. DATA COLLECTION On the day the campers registerd and (n1 the: day they left, they received the same short questionnaire consisting of sixteen closed-ended itesm (Appendix .A, B, E, and PW.. The younger campers received a simpli— fied form of the questionnaire (Appendix A and E). In each of the situations the camp counselor administered the questionnaire to their designated group of campers. Each camp counselor was given instructions. on ihow to administer tine questionnaire. Data were collected for three camper groups. The return percentage was 100% for these questionnaires. When the parents registered their child, they received the same short questionnaire of sixteen closed- ended items which was completed on their return trip home (Appendix C). Upon completion, the questionnaires 51 Table 3.10 Individual Camp Counselor Previous Camping and Staff Experience CAMPING STAFF WOMEN A YES YES E YES No G YES YES K YES YES L YES YES M No No N YES No P YES No MEN B YES No c YES YES ID No NO F YES YES H YES No I YES No J YES YES 0 YES YES Q YES YES 52 were returned in a self-addressed, stamped envelop. These returned questionnaires were not accepted after the camper returned home, thus guarding against question- naire contamination. After the camper was home a week, the parents received another short questionnaire consist- ing of the same sixteen closed-ended items which were to be completed within two days and returned in a self- addressed, stamped envelope (Appendix G). Follow-up letters were sent to those who failed to complete the questionnaire within the two day period. Table 3.11 shows the percentage of return for the three groups. Table 3.11 Parent Second Questionnaire Return Percentage GROUP I II III TOTAL % % % % 87.20 82.10 85.00 84.76 The camp counselor received and completed the same questionnaire of sixteen closed-ended items during pre-canm1 orientation. The identical. questionnaire was given and completed two successive weeks following pre-camp orientation. There was 100% return on the camp counselor questionnaires. INSTRUMENT The research instrument, whether given at the beginning or the end of camp, consisted of sixteen items. The research instrument is adapted from Doty (1960) who used it as an interest finder for a research 53 project at Union College in Schenectady, New York. The first step in the development of the research instrument was to ask on a pre-camp questionnaire the question, "What are you going to camp for -- what do you want to do in camp?" Typical answers were as fol- lows: "To swim and dive" "To have a good time, with lots of fun" "To make new friends" Many campers expressed identical intentions. Other intentions were so closely related that they could be combined -- for example, waterfront activities. By listing sixteen of the identical and combined items, all the campers pre-camp choices were included. The research instrument was given to a sample of 25 boys and girls, ages eight to fifteen. After taking the questionnaire, they were encouraged to make comments about the questionnaire. The pretesting of the questionnaire produced minor changes in the instru- ment. In order to obtain answers to the research questions, the campers, parents, and camp counselors were asked questions accordingly. The entrance instrument for the campers asked them to choose the experiences they hoped to have for the week (Appendix A and B). "What things do you really want to do at camp?" The answers to this question taken from the sixteen closed-ended 54 items are designated as camper initial expectations. The camper exit instrument asked them to pick the exper- iences they had at camp which they liked the most (Ap- pendix E and F). "Pick the things you did at camp that you like the m." These answers are designated as camper reported outcomes. For the parents, the entrance instrument asked them to choose experiences which they thought their child most wanted to do at camp (Appendix C). "Which of the following, do you think, are the reasons for your child wanting to come to camp?" The parent entrance questionnaire identifies parent expectations of camper intentions. The parent exit instrument asked them to choose from a list of experiences, the experiences their child talked about as being worthwhile (Appendix G). "Since camp, has your child talked about the follow- ing things as things that were worthwhile?" The answers from. this checklist. are designated. as ‘parent. reported outcomes. For time camp counselors, their questionnaire asked them to choose from a list of experiences, the experien- ces which they thought the campers most wanted to do at camp (Appendix D). "Which of the sixteen items do you think will be the FEE commonly chosen responses on the part of your campers as to what they most wanted to do at camp?" The choices made identify camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. Dn order to compare 55 camp counselor expectations of camper intentions for shifts, the entrance instrument was given three times. The repeated administrations identify patterns of change (maturing through. experience) for time canm> counselors. Each instrument for the camper, parents, and camp counselor tune the identical sixteen closed-ended items. This procedure allows for comparison of data for discrep- ancies. By way of summary, the purpose of the research instrument; is to identify’ camper initial expectations, camper outcomes, parent intention expectations, parent reported outcomes, and camp counselor intention expecta- tions. These intentions and their fulfillments are assessed for congruency. In essence, the descriptive study is concerned with the congruence between the bottom two cells of Stake's (1967) model: Intended outcomes and Observed outcomes. Various forms of descriptive statistics are employed in the analysis of data: the F test for a split-plot repeated measure, the F test for a one-way repeated measure, and the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Co- efficient, vfldfi1 Fisher's Z transformation. .A critical value of .01 is used for level of significance. It should be noted that the parents are volunteers, which raises the issue of volunteer effect” 'Volunteer subjects are likely to be a biased sample of the target population since volunteers have been found in many 56 studies to differ from nonvolunteers. Rosenthal and Rosnow give the following distinguishing characteris- tics: l. Volunteers tend to be better educa- ted than nonvolunteers, especially when personal contact between in- vestigator and respondent is not required. 2. Volunteers tend tx) be higher in need for social approval than non- volunteers. 3. Volunteers tend to be more sociable than nonvolunteers. 4. Volunteers tend to be less authori- tarian than nonvolunteers. 5. Volunteers tend to be from. smaller towns than nonvolunteers, especially when volunteering is for question- naire studies. 6. Volunteers tend to be more interested in religion than nonvolunteers, especially when volunteering is for questionnaire studies. 7. Volunteers tend to be more altruistic than nonvolunteers. 8. Volunteers tend to be more self- disclosing than nonvolunteers. 9. Volunteers tend tme be higher in need for achievement than nonvol- unteers, especially among American samples (1975, pp. 195-96). SUMMARY This chapter has identified the research methodology of the descriptive study. The guiding research questions dealt with the discrepancies among intentions and their fulfillments of several different sets -- campers, parents, 57 and camp counselors. What follows next is a description of the sample. The sample of subjects is run: randomly selected. One resident summer camp is selected along with its seventeen camp counselors, three groups of campers, and their parents. Several characteristics of the sample are briefly presented: sex, age, cabin size, previous organized camping experience, and staff experience. The procedures for administration of the instrument follows the sample section. The procedures for administration are identified along with instructions for its completion. This section is followed by the characteristics and development of the research instrument. The research instrument has a standardized sixteen closed-ended item questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed specifically for the de- scriptive study. It is adapted from one used for a re- search project at Union College in Schenectady, New York. The final section deals with relationships of re— search questions to the specifics of the research instru- ment, along with a discussion of the volunteer effect. Chapter IV FINDINGS In this chapter the data are reported and analyzed. The findings lead to a better understanding of similar- ities and dissimilarities of the intentions and fulfill- ments of three significant sets of persons -- campers, parents and camp counselors. The plan for analysis fol- lows the research questions with its analytic questions. The research and analytic questions follow. 1. What is the nature and extent of congruence of camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions at a given camp? 1.1 'ho what extent are time initial expectations of the three groups of campers similar? 1.2 in) what extent are time initial expectations of campers vdJiI previous camping experience and campers with no previous camping exper- ience similar for the three camper groups? 1.3 In reference to campers with and without previous camping experience, is there a 58 59 gender-related difference in the initial expectations of camperS? To what extent do camp counselor expectations of camper intentions vary over the three sessions? What is the degree of fit between individual camp counselor expectations of camper in- tentions and camper initial expectation rank ordering for each of the three camper groups? To what extent is there any gender-related difference 1J1 camp counselor predictions of camper initial expectations over the three sessions? 'fl: what extent are parent expectations of camper intentions consonant with camper initial expecta- tions and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? 2.1 To what extent are the expectations of camper intentions of the three groups of parents similar? To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and parent expectations of camper intentions for each of three camper/parent groups similar? To what extent are the rank orderings of camping initial expectations, and parent 60 and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions for each of the three weeks similar? 2.4 To what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered parent expectations of camper irrter1- tions for each. of the three parent. groups similar? 2.5 In reference ti) the congruency between camp counselor and parent expectations of camper intentions, is there any gender- related difference for the camp counselors? To what extent is the fulfillment pattern of campers convergent on the expectations of camper intentions held by the camp counselors? 3.1 To what extent are the reported outcomes of the three groups of campers similar? 3.2 To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes for each of the three groups similar? 3.3 To what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered camper reported outcomes for each of the three camper groups similar? 3.4 In reference ti) the congruency between camp counselor expectations 0 f c a m p e r 61 intentions and camper reported outcomes over the three sessions, is there any gender- related difference for the camp counselors? 3.5 To what extent are the items evidencing pre-to-post upward movement in rank of preference (as reported In! all campers for each given week) predicted by each camp counselor as an anticipated camper initial expectations? To ‘what extent do parents report outcomes that are congruent; ‘with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper in- tentions? 4.1 To what extent are the reported outcomes of the three groups of parents similar? 4.2 To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and parent reported outcomes for each of the three camper/parent groups similar? 4.3 To what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered parent reported outcomes for each of the three parent groups similar? 4.4 In reference ti) the congruency between camp counselor expectations of camper in- tentions and parent reported outcomes over the three sessions, is there a gender-related 62 difference for the camp counselors? 4.5 In reference to the rank orderings of parent expectations of camper intentions and re- ported outcomes for each of the three groups, are they similar? To ‘what extent. do parents report outcomes that are congruent with camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations of camper inten- tions? 5.1 To what extent are the rank orderings of parent reported outcomes and camper reported outcomes for each of the three camper/parent groups similar? 5.2 To what extent are the rank orderings of camper reported outcomes, parent reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions similar? In what ways do camp counselor expectations of camper intentions change over time (mature through experience)? Is the pattern of change in the maturing process in the direction of camper initial expectations or parent expectations of camper intentions, or is it neither? 6.1 (same as 1J4) To what extent do camp coun- selor' expectations (ME camper' intentions vary over the three sessions? 63 6.2 (same as 2.3) To what extent are the rank orderings of camping initial expectations, and parent and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions for each of the three weeks similar? 6.3 (same as 1.5) What is the degree of fit between individual camp counselor expecta- tions of camper intentions and camper initial expectation rank ordering for each of the three camper groups? 6.4 (same as 2.4) 'no what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper in- tentions and rank ordered parent expectations of camper intentions for each of the three parent groups similar? 6.5 To what extent is there any gender-related difference in this pattern for the camp counselors? RESEARCH QUESTION 1 Research question one states: What. is the nature and extent of con- gruence of camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions at £1 given camp? The first research question probes the similarities and dissimilarities between camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The initial expectations of campers are the pre-camp 64 choices (intentions) as to what they would like to (k) once they arrive at camp. Camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are predictions made about initial expectations of campers. The first research question has six analytic questions. The analytic questions and their findings follow. Analytic Question 1.1. To what extent are the initial expectations of the three groups of campers similar? Explanation of Question. Since there are three groups of campers, it is necessary to ascertain similarity between groups. Question lid..asks this analytic question. The question is answered by the data from the camper responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering in which every camper checking an item is counted as a unit of one and added with all the other campers choosing that same item. The three rank orderings are then compared. Data. The following pages present the findings for each of the three groups. Table 4.1 shows the choices indicated by campers, group by group» They ‘were free to choose 'more than. one. ’Dable 4.1 shows the choices as raw scores. The highest distribution for campers is item 2, making new friends; 112 of 124 for Group I, 105 of 115 for Group II, and 115 of 144 for Group III. Braiding is on the opposite end: 37 of 124 for Group I, 32 of 115 for Group II, and 41 of 144 for Group III. Table 4.2 shows the three camper group data presented as rankings. 65 The three groups are compared, using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient: Groups I and II, II and III, I and III. The correlation of initial expectations for Groups I and II is .923 with a Fisher Z of 5.88. The correlation for Groups II and III is .90 with a Fisher Z of 5.45. For Groups I and III, the correlation is .785 with a Fisher Z of 3.91. All these calculations are significant at .01. 66 Table 4.1 Indicated Choices Made by Campers Concerning Initial Expectations GROUP I II III N:124 N:115 N=144 61 38 85 1. ARCHERY 112 105 115 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 53 43 69 3. RIFLERY 86 91 113 1L GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 37 32 41 5. BRAIDING 72 62 84 6. BETTER ATHLETE 71 57 78 7. N A'TLJR E ar1d WILDLIFE 88 85 97 8. S K 11.1.8 F‘O R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 86 71 9O 9.CAMPING TRIPS 73 67 93 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 69 54 75 ll.CANOE TRIPS 73 53 76 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 61 52 57 13. SWIM and DIVE 94 69 80 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 69 59 82 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 99 98 110 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 67 Table 4.2 Rankings: Initial Expectations of Campers GROUP I II III N:12u N:115 N:144 13.5 15 7 l. ARCHERY l l l 2. M A K IbJG N E14 FRIENDS 15 l4 l4 3. RIFLERY 5.5 3 2 4. GETTING ALONG BEST'TEIR WI[TIi fl OTHER PEOPLE 16 16 16 5. BRAIDING 9 8 8 6. BETTER ATHLETE 10 10 ll 7. NATURE and WILDLIFE 4 4 4 8. S K II.L.S F‘O R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 5.5 5 6 9. CAMPING TRIPS 7.5 7 5 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 11.5 ll 13 ll. CANOE TRIPS TS 12 12 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 13-5 13 15 13. SWIM and DIVE 3 6 10 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 11.5 9 9 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 2 2 3 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 68 Discussion. The initial expectations of campers are highly correlated. Examples of this high correlation are items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16.* Some of the larger intergroup differences occur in reference to items 1 and 14. For item 1, a plausible explanation for archery is that Group III has the lowest percentage (n3 campers with pmevious camping experience. For item 14, there is no plausible explanation. Clustering of items shows some systematic differ- ences. Items 2, 4, 8, and 16 are at the top end of the scale. These items are general in nature. Items 3, 5, and 13 are at the bottom of the scale. These items identify specific skills. The difference is in the level of specificity. Camp promotional literature emphasizes specific objectives to Cieate interest. The appeal for camp is in the specifics. However, the findings suggest that campers are more interested in general objectives. In addition ti) whether camper initial expectations vary across groups, a related question concerns differ- ences based. on previous camping‘ experience. Question 1.2 asks this analytic question. *The fact that there is similarity on so many items suggests that the research instrument has reasonably high response reliability across the three groups. 69 Analytic Qgestion 1.2. To what extent are the initial expectations of campers with previous camping experience and campers with. no jprevious camping experience similar for the three camper groups? Explanation of Question. Campers do not come to camp with the same amount of previous camping experience, if any, thus the question. The question is answered by the data from the camper responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering in which every camper checking an item is counted as a unit of one and added with all the other campers choosing that same item. Each response is then classified according to previous camping experience, if any. The rank orderings are then compared. Qggg. The following pages present the findings for each of the three groups showing in each case the selections made by campers with previous camping experience and campers with no previous camping experience. (See Table 4.3.) The table shows the choices as raw scores. The campers were free to choose more than one item. Group I had 124 respondents, 70 with previous camping experience and 54 with no previous camping experience. Group II had 115 respondents, 68 ‘with previous camping experience and 47 with no previous camping experience. Group III had 144 respondents, 59 with previous camping experience and 85 with no previous camping experience. Table 4.4 shows the three camper group data presented as rankings. 70 In Group I, the correlation for the initital expec- tations of campers with previous experience and campers with no previous experience is .81 with a Z of 4.17. In Group II, the correlation is .58 and the Z is 2.45. In Group III, the correlation s .80 with a Z of 4.07. Groups I and III correlations are significant. at the .01 level, Group II correlation is not. 71 Table 4.3 Indicated Choices Made by Campers With and Without Previous Camping Experience GROUP I II III N:124 N=115 N:144 PE NPE PE NPE PE NPE 31 31 16 22 37 57 l. ARCHERY 65 48 55 4O 52 59 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 27 26 22 21 24 45 3. RIFLERY 48 38 59 28 59 63 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 18 2o 25 7 17 19 5. BRAIDING 41 31 33 28 33 52 6. BETTER ATHLETE 41 3o 35 22 3% in 7.NATURE and WILDLIFE 5o 38 49 34 no 56 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 51 35 35 34 37 56 9. CAMPING TRIPS no 32 36 32 no 51 10. soon SPORTSMAN— SHIP 39 in. 29 27 33 In ll.CANOE TRIPS 145 28 32 23 36 38 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 37 28 25 28 19 39 13. SWIM and DIVE so 35 48 22 37 142 111. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 35 33 23 314 34 47 15.ROW- BOATS and PADDLES CANOES 55 nu 6o 38 an 64 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS PE: Previous Experience NPE: No Previous Experience 72 Table 4..4 Rankings: Initial Expectations of Campers With Previous Experience and With No Pre- vious Experience GROUP I II III N:124 N=115 N=144 PE NPE PE NPE PE NPE 14 10 16 13 7 4 1. ARCHERY 1 1 3 l 2 3 2.P1A.K.IDIG N E47 FRIENDS 15 15 l5 15 14 11 3.RIFLERY 6 3.5 2 8 1 2 4.GETTING ALONG BISTTTEII VIIITH OTHER PEOPLE 16 16 12.5 l6 16 16 5. BRAIDING 8 5 II) 9 8 11.5 7 6.BETTER ATHLETE 85 12 75 13 13 9.5 7-NATURE and WILDLIFE 4 5 3.5 4 4 4.5 5.5 {I S K I11L S F 013 BEING A GOOD CAMPER 3 5.5 '75 4 '7 5.5 9.CAMPING TRIPS 10 8 6 6 4.5 8 10.GOOD SPORTSMMP SHIP 11 10 11 10 11.5 13 11.CANOE TRIPS 7 13.5 10 11 9 15 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 12 13.5 12.5 8 15 14 l3.SWIM and DIVE 4 5 5.5 5 l3 7 12 l4.BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 13 7 14 4 10 9.5 15.ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 2 2 1 2 3 1 16.WORK/PLAY WITH PE: Previous Experience NPE: NO Previous Experience CAMPERS 73 Discussion. The correlation between initial expec- tations of campers with previous camping experience and campers with IR) previous experience is run: signifi- cant for all three groups. Differences are seen in items 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 15. For these items there are no plausible reasons. Clustering the data find items 2, 8, and 16 receiv- ing top rankings with items 3, 5, aumi.15 at the bottom. As was noted earlier there seemed to be an interest in initial expectations of £1 general nature. The data concerning campers with and without previous camping experience supports that same observation. Some intragroup differences are not consistent across groups -- Group II, item 4; Group I, item 14; and Group II, item 15. Another vuur to analyze camper initial expectations is to Jxxfl: for gender-related differences among campers with and without previous camping experience. Analytic question 1.3 deals with these gender-related differ- ences . 74 Analytic Question 1.3. In reference to campers with and without previous camping experience, is there a gender-related difference in the initial expectations of campers? Egflanation of Question. Since the campers with and without previous camping experience are boys and girls, it is necessary to ascertain gender-related differences. The question is answered by the data from the camper responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering in which every camper checking an item is counted as a unit of one and added with all the other campers choosing that same item. In addition to each response being classified according to previous camping experience, they are classified according to gender. The rank orderings are then compared. gag-2a. The following pages present the findings for each of the three groups showing in each case the selections made by girls and boys with previous camping experience and girls and boys with no previous camping experience. Table 4.5 shows the choices as raw scores. The campers were free to choose more than one item. Group I had 124 respondents, 41 are girls with previous camping experience, 29 are boys with previous camping experience, 28 are girls with no previous camping exper— ience, and 26 are boys with no previous camping exper- ience. Group II had 115 respondents, 50 are girls with previous camping experience, 18 are boys with previous 75 camping experience, 27 are girls with no previous camping experience, and 20 are boys with. no ‘previous camping experience. Group III had 144 respondents, 35 are girls with previous camping experience, 24 are boys with previous camping experience, 35 are girls with no previous camping experience, and. 50 are boys with no previous camping experienceu Table 4.6 shows the three camper group data presented as rankings. In Group I, the correlation for girls and boys with previous camping experience is .538 with a Z of 2.21. For girls enui boys with IN) previous experience, the correlation is .513 with a Z of 2.08. In Group II, the correlation for girls and boys with previous camping experience is .519 with a Z of 2.13. For girls and boys with. no previous experience, the: correlation is .149 with a Z (HS .55. In Group III, the correlation for girls and boys with previous camping experience is .083 with a Z of .30. For girls and boys with no previous experience, the correlation is .002 with a Z of .007. All these calculations are not significant at .01. 76 oodw.roq.mfln:o.>oé 3. .fi azumtogm “ma :2: 22:3: .3 ~m ~m 2 «n w. 8 m. S - - S R 32.8 3.3: a... v.28 :3 .2 a... S 2 - S 8 o o. 2 .2 .3 cm «5938...: 2.. 3833.8: an .2 cm - 2 m... o m. 2 on o. 3 2 an 2.... a... 5...» .2 - S o 2 2 2 ~ 8 Z .2 .z 8 2.82.3 3.3 .2 d... S m. a a m. o. - 2 o .2 8 9:: no.2; .3 2 3 S - m. .1 m ..~ 2 a. .z m... a...» . go...» 88 .3 ..~ ..~ 2 on 2 - a 8 2 Z 2 ..~ 2...... 2.223 .a on 8 .3 9.... i ow 2 8 2 2 2 ~m 3.28 coco « oszn .. o m m .. .. H a a .8 mm mm 2 ..~ 2 8 a 9. 2 2 2 mm 888...: . o .. a u .. .. ... .. a 4. a... a. 2 a. S 2 .. 8 z 3 3 m... 2.3:: at: .o a S ... S 2 2 o. 8 m. 3 2 ..~ 2:85... .m m .3 ~ 2 o .. m - o S m 3 84.088 gmzao =-a suaama 23.: 2.2L: .. mm on S ~m o S 2 2. a. on. S 3 End... .n on o S .. m. o 2 2 8. m 3 a 8.5.... a a z a .. u g c : .~ 8 mm 2 mm m. m... Z .3 - 9.. ..~ 2. . 5.6.: A 2.1 m. 3 .2 1m. .. m 3 2 2 m. - 2 u... a... n... n... 9:. 2:. m... E 8.... m... 2 m... .2.8 at... 2.8 at... 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 at... 2...: ... m..». .. .~.nz . aaoxu Guava.“ xm u30m>0h1 Oz Sufi; 0:0 m.v 07.09 moccaucaxm ucwaano unaw>oum saw: muomsou aon can undo >n ova: amuuocu vououwucu 77 . coco no an n «>0; 2 "an: nuumx<0 . oocoqgoaxm anou>oum .mm .8... ”3.5.33.2 h u «.3 «.~ o . «.. 2 «.2 ~ «.« u mac-4o u.aa.. a... 2.3- 326. a o «.2 «z. «4. «.« 2 .: o S «.2 2 28.9.2... 2.. 322.28. 2...: «. o «.2 . .22 2 «.n « « «.« S m 2.3 a... 5.5.2 2 «.2 «. Z a o o. «.2 «.3 z «.2 2 2.83.... 2.3.2 .2 «.2 a 2 «. o. .. «.2 o «. «.~ .. «.2...— nonqu... 2 «a. 2 «a «.« : «.2 a 2 2 «.2 «.o 2..» .3522... 32...: o. .. .2 .. z n 2 «a 2 z 3 «.2 «2.... 2.223., m .. «... .. «... «.« .. a o «.9 «.~ « 59.8 noon e ca.un .3. 3.3.»... «.« « .. o «a .. o .. o .. «a .. «28...... a... 223...... .. «.« «.2 2 z 2 2 «.o «.2 «.o S «.8 8.5.52 3.3.26 .. «.2 «... «.2 2 o .. «.2 2 «a «.o «.2 33:86 2 «. o. «.2 3 «.2 «. «.2 o. 2 o. «.3 04500.— 003.20 :hu: cuhhun 02°40 ozuhhu0.c m.m . m m.~ m.~ m.m~ h m.~ N 0a m «.0 o as. .n N on m4 an N 0‘ m.m cu m a a nu columns 308 0.~u¢:.~ z u a u N. N m n. $4 a a a uhfl:08¢ an a m.- n ma w m..« m.m~ ma 0a In m.~u m.z~ mum M... 9. u. 9... 8.... u. M... 9:. .2... n... n... :8 2.50 :8 2.30 axon 3.30 axon 2.20 :8 3.30 :3 2.30 :72 u: 0:»... = .2»: u .525 wimlcoiwuomxmi 252.50.. 02 :3) 05. 09.0224}... .302 a c . o a 1.0».— 533 shoal-0 no 23339998 «2.5.: cm nacmuota 03227.50 3 a: a: 0 c 3 .r 78 Discussion. There are some gender-related differences in initial expectations of campers with and without previous camping experience. Similarity across camper groups for both girls and boys is seen in items 2, 5, and 8. Item 2, making new friends, is the top initial expectation. On the opposite end is item 5, braiding. Item 8, skills for being a good camper, is in the tOp third. A significant gender-related difference is seen 5J1 the initial expectation of riflery, item 3. The boys rank ii;:h1 the top third consistently; however, for girls it is at the bottom of the bottom third. Previous camping experience is not a factor in this case. Another signifi- cant gender-related difference is in item 14, to be re- sponsible and independent. Here the girls rank it in the top third, while the boys tend to rank it in the lower half. Some intragroup differences are not consistent for Group 15. II, and III. Examples of intragroup differences are Group III, item 1; Group II, item 4; Group III, item 10; Group I, item 12; Group II, item 15; and Group II, item 16. A plausible explanation is the group size differ- ences for girls and boys within and across groups. Analytic question 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 deal specifically with camper initial expectations from various perspectives. Another aspect of research question one is camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. Analytic question 1.4 is the first of two questions dealing with camp counse- lor expectations of camper intentions. 79 Analytic Question 1.4. To what extent do camp counse- lor expectations of camper intentions vary over the three sessions? Explanation of Question. Since the same research instrument was given on three different occasions, it is necessary to ascertain similarity. fifime question is answered by the data from. the camp counselor responses amalgamated in the form of a rank cmdering in which every camp counselor checking an item is counted as a unit of one and added with all the other camp counselors choos- ing that same item. The three rank orderings are then compared. Data. There are 17 camp counselors. The findings for the three different administrations are shown in Table 4.7. The table presents the findings in raw scores. The counselors were free to choose more than one item. The percentage distribution for camp counselors for item 2 is 100% for session I, 82.35% for session II, and 88.23% for session III. Itenl 6, being' a 'better athlete, had a percentage distribution of 0% for each of the three sessions. Close to item 6 is item 10, good sportsmanship; 5.88% for session I, 5.88% for session II and 0% for session III. Table 4.8 shows the rankings for the camp counselor choices for each of the three sessions. 80 The correlation of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions for Sessions I and II is .946 with a Z of 6.60. The correlation for Sessions II and III is .90 with a Z of 5.45. For Sessions I and III, the correlation is .943 with a Z of 6.43. All these calculations are significant at .01. 81 Table 4.7 Indicated Choices Made by Camp Counselors SESSION I II III N:l7 5 6 5 1. ARCHERY 17 1“ 1‘5 2.MAKING NEw FRIENDS 3 5 5 3. RIFLERY 2 H 2 A.GETTING ALONG BETTER wITH OTHER PEOPLE 2 1 2 5. BRAIDING o O 0 6. BETTER ATHLETE 9 7 7 7. N A'TLJR E arid WILDLIFE 7 5 7 8. S K II.L.S F‘O R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 15 12 ll 9.CAMPING TRIPS l l 0 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 8 6 6 11.GANOE TRIPS u 6 u 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 3 11 ll 13. SWIM and DIVE l u 3 1A. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT u 6 5 15. Row BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 12 9 12 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 82 Table 4.8 Rankings: Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions Session by Session SESSION I II III N=l7 7 6.5 8.5 l. ARCHERY l l l 2.M1\KI[N(3 NIEW FRIENDS 10.5 9.5 6.5 3. RIFLERY 12.5 12 13.5 A.GETTING ALONG BETTIE}? WITFH OTHER PEOPLE 12.5 14.5 13.5 5.BRAIDING 16 16 15.5 6.BETTER ATHLETE U A A.5 7.N AlfUIRE arld WILDLIFE 6 9.5 4.5 8.SP(ILI.S F‘OR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 2 2 3 9.CAMPING TRIPS lu.5 14.5 15.5 lO.GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 5 6.5 6.5 ll.CADJOE TWIIPS 8.5 6.5 10.5 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 10.5 12 10.5 l3.SWIM and DIVE 1U.5 12 12 lU.BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 8.5 6.5 8.5 l5.ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 3 3 2 l6.WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 83 Discussion. The expectations (ME camper intentions of camp counselors as a groupi are highly correlated over‘ the 'three sessions. Similarity' exists for :items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The first four positions from top down are taken by items 2, 9, 16, 7, respectively. The bottom four positions from bottom up are items 6, 10, 5, and 14. By cluster- ing items in this way, there is no pattern or character- istic similarity that would distinguish one cluster from another. Item 3 shows a modest upward movement from beginning to end. Analytic question 1.4 treats camp counselors as a group. Looking for individual differences among camp counselor expectations of camper intentions is another way of analysis. Analytic question 1.5 addres- ses these individual differences. 84 Analytic Question 1.5. What is the degree of fit between individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper initial expectation rank ordering for each of the three camper groups? Explanation of Question. Since the previous analytic question treated the camp counselors as a group, it is necessary tx> ascertain individual differences. The ques- tion is answered from the data of camper rank ordered responses and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every 3 choices of each camp counselor the same (g) number of top ranking choices of camper initial expectations are selected for matching. How many of the 3 choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper n for the campers? A In the case of Counselor A (Table 4.9), the counselor marked 5 items. The top 5 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching with the counselor's 5 choices. The comparison of the items shows that 3 matched. Therefore, the statement reads 3 of 5 for Group I. For Group II, counselor A marked 6 items. The top 6 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching. The comparison of the items shows that 3 matched. The statement then reads 3 of 6. Data. The following pages give the findings for each (us the individual camp counselors. Table 4.9 gives the raw scores of each individual camp counselor across the three camper groups. The number of choices runs 85 from a low of l to a high of 10. Counselors D, H, and I each missed completely on one occasion. The top three counselors with highest congruence are E, Q, and K with total raw scores of 8 of 9, 6 of 8, and 14 c&' 19, respectively. Counselors 1Q D, and II have the lowest congruence with raw scores of 5 (n? 16, 5 of 14 and 4 of 11, respectively. Table 4.10 compares each individual camp counselor across the three camper groups, with the findings presented in percentages. The form of statistical analysis for the data of Table 4.10 is a F test for a one way repeated measure, with a critical value of .01 used as the level of sig- nificance. 86 Table 4.9 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expec- tations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expectations for Congruence: Raw Scores GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 3 of 5 3 of 6 2 of 3 B 1 of 3 2 of 5 1 of 2 C 3 of 6 4 of 8 5 of 9 D 3 of 5 2 of 5 0 of 4 E 3 of 5 6 of 8 5 of 8 F 5 of 5 1 of l 2 of 3 G 3 of 5 2 of 4 3 of 5 H 3 of 5 0 of 4 l of 2 I 3 of 6 2 of 6 0 of 4 J 4 of 6 3 of 6 3 of 8 K 3 of 5 6 of 7 5 of 7 L 3 of 7 3 of 7 2 of 5 M 6 of 10 1 of 3 2 of 3 N 1 of 4 3 of 5 2 of 5 O 3 of 4 5 of 7 4 of 7 P 4 of 10 l of 5 5 of 10 87 Table 4.10 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Ex- pectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Ini- tial Expectations for Congruence GROUP 1 II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 50. % 66.66% B 33.33 40. 50. C 50. 50. 55.55 D 60. 40 0 E 60 75 80 F 100. 100. 66.66 G 60. 50. 60. H 60. O 50. I 50 33.33 0 J 66.66 50. 37.50 K 60. 85.71 71.42 L 42.85 42.85 40. M 60. 33.33 66.66 N 25. 60. 40. O 75. 71.42 57.14 P 40 20 50 O 66.66 100. 66.66 NET 969.50 901.64 858.25 57.02 53.03 50.48 ><| 88 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests that camp counselors, in general, even with increasing experience, do not become more likely to estimate camper initial expectations. Instead, the counselors seem to become less likely to predict what the camper initial expectations are. This lower level of similarity over time could kmeaa declining competency or skill. Camp Counselors D, F, I, J, L, and 0 show declining competency, while only camp counselors B, C, and E show a modest improvement. The rest of the camp counselors, (A, G, H, K, M, N, P, and Q) show variability. The declining competency can also be seen in camp counselor means. The mean for degree of similarity went from 57.07% for camper Group I to 53.03% for camper Group II to 50.48% for camper Group III. Figure 4.1 illustrates the declining. However, the statistical analysis shows that this trend can not be predicted at a high level of confidence. The F value is .786, which is not significant at the .01 level. 89 100 g 3‘ 90 F5: '8 z :6 €30 a: .21 70 S .5 E13 0') 6O 3 A. 50 (:3) O U m 40 m 8 30 E R U C! 20 10 o .\_- I II III CAMPER GROUP FIGURE 4.1 SUMMARY OF CAMP COUNSELORS MEANS AND CAMPER GROUPS What about a: gender-related difference iJI individ- ual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? Question 1.6 asks this analytic question. 90 Analytic Question 1.6. To what extent is there a gender-related difference in camp counselor predic- tions of camper initial expectations over the three sessions? Explanation of Question. The purpose of the ques- tion is to ascertain gender-related differences in camp counselors. The question is answered from the data of camper rank ordered responses and. the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every n of each camp counselor the same (3) number of top ranking choices of camper initial expectations are selected for matching. How many of the g choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper n for the campers? The ratio of choices are ‘then 1mm; in. percentage form. .Finally, the responses of camp counselors are classified according to gender. Data, Eight camp counselors are women: A, E, G, K, L, M, N, and P. Nine camp counselors are men: B, C, D, FD 11, I, J, O, and CL The data from Analytic Question 1.5 (Table 4.9) give the raw scores for each individual camp» counselor. 'Table 4.11 compares ‘women camp counselors across time three camper groups. Table 4.12 compares men camp counselors. In each case, the degree of similarity is presented in percentages. The degrees of similarity shown in Table 4.11 and 4.12 are discussed following the last of these tables. 91 The form of statistical analysis for the data of Tables 4.11 and 4.12 is the F test for a split-plot repeated measure, with an established critical value of .01. 92 Table 4.11 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Initial Expecta- tion for Congruence GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 50. % 66.66% E 60. 75. 80. G 60 50. 60 K 60 85.71 72 42 L 42.85 42.85 40. M 60. 33.33 66.66 N 25 60 40 P 40 20. 50 NET 407.85 416.89 475.74 R 50.98 52.11 59.46 93 Table 4. 12 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and camper Initial Expecta- tion for Congruence GROUP I II III COUNSELOR B 33.33% 40. % 50. % C 50. 50. 55.55 D 60. 40 0 F 100. 100. 66.66 H 60. o. 50. I 50. 33.33 0. J 66.66 50. 37.50 O 75 71.42 57 14 O 66.66 100. 66.66 NET 561.65 484.75 383.51 R 62.40 53.86 42.61 94 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests that gender-related differences exist in camp counselors' skill or insight in predicting what camper initial expectations are. The women show definite improvement over the three sessions. The mean for the women moves from 50.98% to 52.11% to 59.46%. (See Table 4.11.) Although the men start higher, a steady decline exists over the three sessions; 62.40% to 53.86% to 42.61%. (See Table 4.12.) Figure 4.2 illustrates the gender-related difference. However, the statistical analysis shows that this gender-related difference can not be predicted at a high level of confidence. The P value for gender-related difference is .252, which is not significant at the .01 level. 100 B 3 90 5 {j 80 2'. r6 :5 E 70 . B .7, 6° /--.~ to 50 -——--"'"' N- 5 .. c) O 40 ' L) O Q‘ g 30 E 8‘ 20 (J a 10 --=women 0 ---=men I II III CAMPER GROUP FIGURE 4.2 SUMMARY OF WOMEN AND MEN CAMP COUNSELORS MEANS AND CAMPER GROUPS 95 Summary. The following statements are 51 summary of findings concerning research question one. 1. Camper initial expectations are highly corre- lated across groups. Previous camping experience makes a difference in camper initial expectations. Some gender-related differences exist in ini- tial expectations of campers with and without previous camping experience. Camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are highly correlated across the three sessions. 96 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 Research question two states: To what extent are parent expectations of camper intentions consonant with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper inten- tions? The second research question probes the similarities and dissimilarities of parent expectations of camper intentions with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. Parent expectations of camper intentions are predictions made about initial expectations of campers. The second research question has five analytic questions. These analytic questions and their findings follow. Analytic Question 2.1. To what extent are the ex- pectations of camper intentions of the three groups of parents similar? Explanation of Question. Since there are three groups of parents, it is necessary to ascertain similarib ties between groups. Question 2.1 asks this analytic question. The question is answered by the data from the parent responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering in which every parent checking an item is counted as a unit of one and added with all the other parents choosing the same item. These rank orderings for the three groups are then compared. Qata. The following pages present the findings for each of the three parent groups. Ix total of 162 97 parent sets responded. Table 4.13 shows the choices indicated by the parent groups. The choices are present- ed as raw scores. The parents were free to choose more than one item. The highest distribution for parents is item 16, working and playing with campers the same age; 39 of 48 for Group I, 40 of 46 for Group II, and 60 of 68 for Group III. Item 6, being a better athlete, is on the opposite end; 8 of 48 for Group I, 8 of 46 for Group II, and 16 of 68 for Group III. Table 4.14 shows the three parent group data presented as rankings. The three parent groups are compared, using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient; Groups I and II, II and III, I and III. The correlation of parent expectations of camper intentions for Groups I and II is .812 with a Z of 4.17. The correlation for Groups II and III is .839 with a Z of 4.52. For Groups I and III, the correlation is .803 with a Z of 4.07. All these calculations are significant at .01. The parent expectations of camper intentions are highly correlated. 98 Table 4.13 Indicated Choices Made by Parents GROUP I II III N:48 Nzué N=68 21 12 28 l. ARCHERY 31 3o Lu; 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 23 12 27 3. RIFLERY 12 12 22 1L GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 8 12 13 5. BRAIDING 8 8 l6 6. BETTER ATHLETE 34 27 37 7. N A T U R E a.n d WILDLIFE 26 29 32 8.8KILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 31 24 26 9.CAMPING TRIPS 12 9 16 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 23 ll 21 ll. CANOE TRIPS 9 12 27 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 9 10 16 13. SWIM and DIVE 22 25 33 IA. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 24 19 33 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 39 No 60 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 99 Table 4.14 Rankings: Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions GROUP I II III N248 N:U6 N=68 10 1o 7 1. ARCHERY 15 2 2 a MAKING NEW FRIENDS 7.5 10 8.5 3. RIFLERY 11.5 10 11 A. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 15.5 10 16 5. BRAIDING 15.5 16 1A 6. BETTER ATHLETE 2 A 3 7. NIATUIRE a11d WILDLIFE 5 3 6 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 3.5 6 10 9. CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 15 1A 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 7.5 13 12 11. CANOE TRIPS 13.5 10 8.5 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 13.5 1A 1A 13. SWIJd & IDIVE 9 5 A.5 1A. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 6 7 “~5 15- 110 w Bc1AL A1r WITH CAMPERS 100 Discussion. The expectations (n3 camper intentions of the three parent groups are highly correlated. Items 1, 2h 13, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are examples of this high correlation. Some of the larger intergroup differences occur in items 5 and 9; for which there is not plausible explanation. Items 2, 7, and 16 are in the top third rankings. The bottom third finds items 6, 10, and 13. Parents seem to think that their children are more interested in establishing meaningful relationships with fellow campers in ea natural setting, rather than engaging in activities that are associated with becoming a better athlete. The next step in research question two is to compare camper initial expectations and parent expectations of camper intentions for similarities and dissimilar- ities. Analytic question 2.2 deals with that match. 101 Analytic Question 2.2. To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and parent expectations of camper intentions for each of the three camper/parent groups similar? Explanation of Question. The purpose of the ques- tion is to ascertain similarities in camper initial expectations and parent expectations of camper inten- tions. The question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of camper and parent expecta- tions. The two rank orderings are matched showing the amount of difference for each of the three camper/ parent groups. 211:3. Table 4.15 presents the findings for each of the three camper/parent groups. Again the norm is 162; the distribution being 48, 46, and 68. In Group I, the rank orderings of camper initial expecta- tions and parent expectations have a correlation of .511 and a Z of 2.08. In Group II, the correlation is .475 with a Z of 1.91. In Group III, the correlation is .354 Ruth 51 Z of 1.37. All these calculations are not significant at the .01 level. These rank orderings are not significantly correlated. 102 Table 4.15 Summary of Comparison of Camper Initial Expecta- .tions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentipns GROUP I 11 III N=A8 N=A6 N=68 CIE PECI CIE PECI CIE PECI 9 10 15 10 6 7 1. ARCHERY 1 35 115 2 3 2 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 11.5 7.5 1A 10 11 8.5 3. RIFLERY 3 11.5 3 1o 1 11 A. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 16 15.5 16 10 16 16 5. BRAIDING 7.5 1545 9.5 16 8 1A 6. BETTER ATHLETE 115 2 125 A 9 3 7.NATURE and WILDLIFE 5 5 A4 3 2 6 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 5 3.5 5 6 7 10 9. CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 11.5 8 15 5 1A 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 75 75 11 13 13 12 ll.CANOE TRIPS 11.5 13.5 7 10 11 8.5 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 15 135 9.5 1A 15 1A 13 SWIM & DIVE 5 9 6 5 1A A.5 1A. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 1A 6 125 7 n A5 w.Row BOATS & PADDLE CANOES 2 l 1-5 l A 1 16. w 0 R K / P L A Y WITH CAMPERS CIE: Camper Initial Expectation PECI: Parent Expectation of Camper Intentions 103 Discussion. Camper initial expectations and parent expectations cfif camper intentions are INN: significantly correlated. Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, and 15 show dissimilarity. To further illustrate time dissimilarity, item 4, getting along better with other people, campers rate this item in the top third, whereas parents place it in the bottom half. For iten1 6, being' a Zbetter athlete, campers place this item :hi time middle ‘third, but the parents rate it almost at the bottom of the bottom third. Item 7, nature and wildlife, campers rate it in the top third; parents, the: middle third. The next analytic question adds camp counselor expectations of camper intentions to the comparison just discussed. 104 Analytic gpestion 2.3. To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations, and parent and camp counselor expectations of camper inten- tions for each of the three weeks similar? Explanation of Question. The purpose of this question is to ascertain the similarities of camp counse- lor expectations of camper intentions and expectations of campers and parents. The question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of camper initial expectations, parent and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The three rank orderings are matched showing the amount of difference for each of the three camper/parent/counselor groups. Dal—ta. Table 4.16 presents the findings for each of the three camper/parent/counselor groups. In Group I, the correlation for campers and parents is .511 with a Z of 2.08; for campers and counselors, .394 with a Z of 1.54; for parents and counselors, .806 with a Z of 4.12. In Group II, the correlation for campers and parents is .475 with a Z of 1.91; for camp- ers and counselors, .304 with a Z of 1.14; for parents and counselors, .694 with a Z of 3.17. In Group III, the correlation for campers and parents is .354 with a Z of 1.37; for campers and counselors, .288 with a Z of 1.10; for parents and counselors, .712 with a Z of 3.28. With an established level of confidence of .01, the correlation for campers/parents, and campers/ 105 counselors, in each of the three groups, are not signi— ficant. The correlations for parents/counselors are significant. Camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations are not significantly correlated. However, parent and camp counselor expectations are. 106 Table 4.16 Summary of Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations, Parent and Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions GROUP I III N:48 N:l7 N246 N=l7 N=68 N=l7 CIE PECI CECI CIE PECI CECI CIE PECI CECI 9 10 7 15 10 6.5 6 7 8.5 l. ARCHERY l 3.5 l 1.5 2 l 3 2 l 2. MAKING NEW FRIENDS 11.5 7.5 10.5 14 10 9.5 11.5 8.5 6.5 3. RIFLERY 3 11.5 12.5 3 10 12 l 11 13.5 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 16 15.5 12.5 16 10 14.5 l6 16 13.5 5. BRAIDING 7.5 15.5 16 9.5 l6 l6 8 14 15.5 6. BETTER ATHLETE 11.5 2 14 12.5 4 14 9 3 4.5 7. NIATLIREI ar1d WILDLIFE 5 5 6 4 3 9.5 2 6 4.5 8. SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 5 3.5 2 5 6 2 7 10 3 9. CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 11.5 14.5 8 15 14.5 5 14 15.5 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 7.5 7.5 5 ll 13 6.513 12 6.5 11. CANOE TRIPS 11.5 13.5 8.5 7 10 6.511 8.5 10.5 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 15 13.5 10.5 9.514 12 15 14 10.5 13. SWIM & DIVE 5 9 14.5 6 5 12 14 4.5 12 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT l4 6 8.5125 7 6.511 4.5 8.5 15. ROW BOATS & PADDLE CANOES 2 l 3 1.51 3 4 l 2 16.WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS CIE: Camper Initial Expectation PECI: Parent Expectation of Camper Intentions CECI: Counselor Expectation of Camper Intentions 107 Discussion. Camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are not significantly correlated. However, the correlation between parent and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions is significantly correlated. Items 4, 6, and 7 show significant mismatch. Campers rate item 4 in the top third, parents and camp counselors the bottom half. Campers rate item 6in the middle third; parents and camp counselors rate it almost at the bottom of‘ the bottom third. For item 7, campers place it in the top third; parents and camp counselors, the middle third. What about individual camp counselor differences when it comes to comparing camp counselor' and parent expectations of camper intentions? Question 2.4 ad- dresses this analytic question. 108 Analytic Question 2.4. TR: what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered parent expectations of camper intentions for each of the three groups similar? Explanation of Question. The purpose of this ques- tion is to ascertain similarities between expectations of camper intentions of camp counselors and parents. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered parent responses and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every {1 choices of each camp counselor, the same (3) number of top ranking choices of parent expectations of camper intentions are selected for matching. How many of the _r_1 choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper _r_1 for the parents? In the case of Counselor A (Table 4.17), the counselor marked 5 items. The top 5 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching with the counselor's 5 choices. The comparison of the items show that 3 matched. Therefore, the statement reads 3 of 5 for Group I. For Group III, Counselor A marked 3 items. The top 3 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching. The comparison of the items shows that 2 matched. The statement then reads 2 of 3. Data. The following pages show the findings for each individual camp counselor. Table 4.17 is a summary of comparison of individual camp counselor expectations 109 of camper intentions across the three parent groups, presented in raw scores. The number of choices distri- butes betweem a low of 1 and a high of 10. Counselors H and I each missed completely on one occasion. The three counselors with highest congruence are K, M, and Q with total raw scores of 15 of 19, 12 of 16, and 6 of 8, respectively. Counselors B, I, and D have the lowest congruence with raw scores of 3 CH? 10, 6 of 16, and (5 of 14, respectiveLy. Table 4.18 compares each individual camp counselor across the three parent groups, with the findings presented in percentages. The form of statistical analysis used for Table 4.18 is the same one that was used for Table 4.10. 110 Table 4.17 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Ex- pectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions: Raw Scores GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 3 of 5 2 of 6 2 of 3 B 1 of 3 1 of 5 1 of 2 C 3 of 6 4 of 8 6 of 9 D 3 of 5 2 of 5 1 of 4 E 3 of 5 7 of 8 5 of 8 F 4 of 5 0 of l 2 of 3 G 3 of 5 2 of 4 3 of 5 H 3 of 5 0 of 4 2 of 2 I 3 of 6 3 of 6 O of 4 J 5 of 6 3 of 6 6 of 8 K 4 of 5 6 of 7 5 of 7 L 3 of 7 4 of 7 2 of 5 M 8 of 10 1 of 3 3 of 3 N 3 of 4 4 of 5 3 of 5 O 3 of 4 6 of 7 4 of 7 P 8 of 10 0 of 5 7 of 10 111 Table 4. 18 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Expectations_of Camper Intentions: Percentages GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 33.33% 66.66% B 33.33 20. 50. C 50. 50. 66.66 D 60 40 25 E 60 87.51 62 50 F 80. 0. 66.66 G 60. 50. 60. H 60. 0. 100. I 50. 50. 0. J 83.33 50. 75. K 80. 85.71 71.42 L 42.85 57.14 40. M 80. 33.33 100. N 75. 80. 60. 0 75. 85.71 57.14 P 80. 0. 70. Q 66.66 100. 66.66 NET 1096.17 822.73 1037.70 2 64.48 48.39 61.04 112 Discussion. No consistent pattern of similarity exists between camp counselors' and parents' skill or insight in predicting camper initial ‘expectations. Counselors A, B, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q show variability. Counselors D and I show a lessening of similarity; whereas Counselor (2 shows improvement. The variability can also be seen in the camp counse- lor means. The mean for degree of similarity went from 64.48% to 48.39% to 61.04%. Figure 4.3 illustrates the variability. 100 90 80 70 60 ‘\ . 50 ‘v/ 40 30 20 10 CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS Degree of Similarity I II III PARENT GROUP FIGURE 4.3 SUMMARY OF CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS AND PARENT GROUPS Is there any gender-related difference in the similarities between camp counselor and parents expectations of camper intentions? Question 2.5 deals with that analytic question. 113 Analytic Question 2.5. In reference to the congru- ency between camp counselor and parent expectations of camper intentions, is there any gender-related dif- ference for the camp counselors? Explanation of Question. The purpose of the ques- tion is to ascertain gender—related differences in camp counselors with reference to similarity of camp counselor and parent expectations of camper intentions. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered parent responses and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every n choices of each camp counselor, the same number of top ranking choices of parent expectations of camper intentions are selected for matching. How many of the (3) choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper 11 for the parents? The ratio of choices are then put in percentage form. Finally, the re- sponses of camp counselors are classified according to gender. Data. Eight camp counselors are women: A, E, G, K, L, M, N, and P. Counselors B, C, D, F, H, I, J, O, and Q are men. The data from Analytic Question 2.4 (Table 4.17) give the raw scores for each individual camp counselor. Table 4.19 compares women camp counselors across the three parent groups. Table 4.20 compares the ImmT. In each case, the degree, of similarity is presented in percentages. The degrees of similarity 114 shown in Tables 4.19 and 4.20 are discussed following the last of these tables. The form of statistical analysis used for Tables 4.19 and 4.20 is the same one that was used for Tables 4.11 and 4.12. 115 Table 4.19 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expec- tations of Camper Intentions and Parent Ex- pectations of Camper Intentions GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 33.33% 66.66% E 60. 87.51 62.50 G 60 50 60 K 80 85.71 71 42 L 42.85 57.14 40. M 80. 33.33 100. N 75 80 60 P 80. 0 70 NET 537.85 427.02 530.58 E 67.23 53.37 66.32 116 Table 4.20 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expecta- tions of Camper Intentions and Parent Expec- tations of Camper Intentions GROUP I II III COUNSELOR B 33.33% 20. % 50. % C 50. 50. 66.66 D 60 40 25 F 80 0 66 66 H 60. 0. 100. I 50. 50. 0. J 83.33 50. 75. O 75 85.71 57 14 O 66.66 100. 66.66 NET 558.32 395.71 507.12 E 62.03 43.96 56.34 117 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests that some gender-related difference exists in congruency between camp counselors' and parents' skill cm: insight in pmedicting camper initial expecta- tions. The similarities are slightly higher for women. The mean moves from 67.23% to 53.37% to 66.32% (See Table 4.19.) The men are lower, moving from 62.03% to 43.96% to 56.34% (See Table 4.20.) Figure 4.4. illustrates the gender-related difference. However, the statistical analysis shows that this gender-related difference can not be predicted at a high level of confidence . The F value for gender-related difference is 2.75, which is not significant at the .01 level. 100 90 80 70 o. 60 '\ //. 50 ‘., , / 40 30 20 1O ___ women 0 -—- men I II III PARENT GROUP CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS Degree of Similarity FIGURE 4.4 SUMMARY OF WOMEN AND MEN CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS AND PARENT GROUPS 118 Summary. The following statements are 23 summary of the findings concerning research question two. 1. Parent expectations of camper intentions are highly correlated across groups. Camper initial expectations and the expecta- tions of parents and camp counselors are not significantly correlated. Parent and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are significantly correlated. 119 RESEARCH QUESTION 3 Research question three states: To what extent is the fulfillment pat— tern of campers convergent on the ex- pectations CHE camper intentions held by the camp counselors? The third research question probes the fulfillment pattern of campers and its match with camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The fulfillment pattern is considered as camper reported outcome or trends. Camper reported outcomes are the experiences campers like the most while in camp. Trends are the items evidencing change 1J1 camper rankings from initial expectations to reported outcome. The research question has five aspects. Analytic question one examines the match of camper reported outcomes across camper groups. Analytic question two examines the match of campers' initial expectations and reported outcomes. The third analytic question examines the match between camp counse- lor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes. Analytic question four deals with gender- related differences in camp counselors in the congruency of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes. The fifth analytic question deals with the match between items evidencing upward movement in rankings and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The analytic questions with their findings follow. 120 Analytic Question 3.1. To what extent are the reported outcomes of the three groups of campers similar? Explanation of Question. Since there are three groups of campers, it is necessary to ascertain similar- ity between groups. The question is answered by the data from the camper responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering. Each response is equal to a unit of one. .All similar responses are added for each item with the sums for each item rank ordered. Data. The findings for the three groups of campers are presented in the following pages. Table 4.21 shows the choices indicated by campers, group by group. They were free to choose more than one item. The table shows the choices as raw scores. The highest distribu- tion for campers is item. 2, making new friends; 104 of 124 for Group I, 115 of 115 for Group II, and 121 of 144 for Group III. Canoe trips are on the opposite end; 31 of 124 for Group I, 27 of 115 for Group II, and 39 of 144 for Group III. 'Table 4.22 shows the rankings for camper reported outcomes. The form of statistical analysis for Table 4.22 is the same as the one used for Table 4.2. The correlation of camper reported outcomes for Groups I and II is .896 with a Z of 5.35; for Groups II and III, .921 with a Z of 5.88; for Groups I and III, .927 with a Z of 6.01. All calculations are signi- ficant at the .01 level. 121 Table 4.21 Indicated Choices Made by Campers Concerning Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III Nzl24 N:115 N:l44 “1 3“ 53 1. ARCHERY 194 115 1a. 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 34 3O 38 3. RIFLERY 85 86 105 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 49 32 40 5. BRAIDING 60 49 70 6. BETTER ATHLETE % 50 55 7.NATURE and WILDLIFE M 70 99 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 91 61 87 9. CAMPING TRIPS 63 54 76 1O. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 31 27 39 11.CANOE TRIPS 63 50 72 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 53 58 46 13. SWIM and DIVE 77 71 92 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 69 “7 68 15.R0W BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 102 93 111 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 122 Table 4.22 Rankings: Camper Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N:124 N:ll5 N:144 14 13 12 l. ARCHERY 1 1 1 2. MAF(INGA PJEW FRIENDS 15 15 16 3. RIFLERY 4 3 3 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 13 14 14 5. BRAIDING 11 ll 9 6. BETTER ATHLETE 8 9.5 11 7.11ATLJRE aT1d WILDLIFE 5 5 4 8.53KIIILS I7OR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 3 6 6 9. CAMPING TRIPS 9.5 8 7 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN— SHIP 16 16 15 11. CANOE TRIPS 9.5 9.5 8 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 12 7 13 13 SWIM & DIVE 6 4 5 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 7 12 10 15. R O W B O A T S 8: PADDLE CANOES 2 2 2 l6.VVOIiK/’PL.AY WITH CAMPERS 123 Discussion. The camper reported outcomes are highly correlated across camper groups. No large inter- group differences exist. Clustering of items find that items 2, 4, 8, and 16 are in the top third and items 1, 3, 5, and 11 are in the bottom third. The items in the top third are of a general nature; those in the bottom third are specific. How do these camper reported outcomes compare with camper initial expectations? Question 3.2 examines this analytic question. 124 Analytic Question 3.2. To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes for each of the three groups similar? Explanation of Question. Analytic question 3.2 examines the Imflxfll of initial expectations and reported outcomes of campers. The question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of camper initial expectations and reported outcomes for each of the three groups. fflua two rank orderings are matched show- ing the amount of difference for each of the three groups. Data. Table 4.23 presents the findings for each of the three camper groups. Similarities are seen in items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 16. In Group I the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes have a correlation of .749 with a Z of 3.60. In Group II, the correlation is .812 with a. Z of 4.17. In. Group III time correlation is .741 with. a Z of 3.51. All calculations are significant at the .01 level. 125 Table 4.23 .A Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations and Camper Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N:48 N=46 N=68 CIE CRO CIE CRO CIE CR0 9 12 15 12.5 6 ll 1. ARCHERY l l 1.5 l 3 l 2. M! K INC} NEEW FRIENDS 11.5 l3 14 14.5 ll 14 3. RIFLERY 3 5 3 3 l 3 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 16 15 16 14.5 16 15 5. BRAIDING 7.5 10.5 9.5 10 8 9 6. BETTER ATHLETE 11.5 8.5 12.5 8 9 12. 7. NATURE and WILDLIFE 5 5 4 6 2 4 8. S KlZLI.S F()R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 5 3 5 7 7 6 9. CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 10.5 8 10 5 7 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 7 5 16 ]J l6 13 16 1L CANOE TRIPS 11.5 E15 7 12.5 11 10 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 15 14 9.5 5 15 12. 13. SWIM & DIVE 5 5 6 ‘4 l4 5 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT l4 7 12.510 11 8 15. ROW BOATS 8: PADDLE CANOES 2 2 1.5 2 4 2 16. W O R K / P L A Y WITH CAMPERS CIE: Camper Initial Expectation CRO: Camper Reported Outcomes 126 Discussion. Camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes are significantly correlated. They were able to accomplish what they initially intended to do and they have good feelings about their accomplish- ments. For example, they come to camp wanting to make new friends (item 2) and go away' with good feelings toward the outcome. Campers come to camp wanting to get along better with other people (item 4) and go away with the same good feeling about it. The same can be said for being a better athlete (item 6). They come wanting to gain skills for camping (item 8) and go away feeling rewarded. The same thing can be said for working and playing with campers their own age (item 16). A few minor exceptions are present. For example, for some reason, camping :UT this context, ii? campers go on canoe trips (item 11), they are going to feel less rewarded than they thought they would, and if they row boats or paddle canoes (item 15), they are going to feel a little better about it. Camper feel- ings towards swimming and diving (item 13) were not very good initially, but they left with a considerable better feeling toward it. Having compared camper intial expectations and reported outcomes, the next step is 13) examine individ- ual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes, thus analytic question 3.3. 127 Analytic Question 3.3. 'Ro what extent are individ- ual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered camper reported outcomes for each of the three camper groups similar? Explanation of Question. Analytic question 3.3 examines the match between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered camper responses and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every a choices of each camp counselor, the same (a) number of top ranking choices of camper reported outcomes are selected for matching. How many of the a choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper a for the campers? In the case of Counselor A (Table 4.24), the counselor marked 5 items. The top 5 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching with the counselor's 5 choices. The comparison of the items shows tflmn: 4 Hatched. Therefore, the state- ment reads 4 CH? 5 for Group 13. For Group II, Counselor A marked 6 items. The top 6 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching. The comparison of the items shows that 3 matched. The statement then reads 3 of 6. Data. The following pages present the findings for each individual camp counselor. The seventeen counselors are compared. with all the available camper 128 data, 383 campers. Table 4.24 is a summary of comparison of individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions across the three camper groups, presented in raw scores. The number of choices distributes be- tween a low of 1 and a high of 10. Counselors D, H. I, and P each missed the mark completely on one oc- casion. The top three counselors with highest congru- ence are Q, K, and F with total raw scores of 7 of 8, 15 of 19, and 7 of 9, respectively. Counselors D, I, and B have the lowest congruence with total raw scores of 4 of 14, 5 of 16, and 3 of 10, respectively. Table 4.25 compares each individual camp counselor across the three camper groups, with the findings pre- sented in percentages. The form of statistical analysis used for Table 4.25 is the same one that was used for Table 4.10. 129 Table 4.24 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Reported Outcomes: Raw Scores GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 4 of 5 3 of 6 2 of B 1 of 3 l of 5 1 of C 3 of 6 4 of 8 5 of D 3 of 5 1 of 5 0 of E 3 of 5 6 of 8 6 of F 4 of 5 l of l 2 of G 3 of 5 1 of 4 4 of H 3 of 5 0 of 4 2 of I 3 of 6 2 of 6 0 of J 4 of 6 3 of 6 4 of K 3 of 5 6 of 7 6 of L 3 of 7 4 of 7 2 of M 7 of 10 l of 3 2 of N 2 of 4 3 of 5 2 of O 2 of 4 5 of 7 3 of P 5 of 10 0 of 5 5 of 10 130 Table 4.25 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Camper Raported Outcomes: Percentages GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 80. % 50. % 66.66% B 33.33 20. 50. C 50. 50. 55.55 D 60. 20. 0. E 60. 75. 75. F 80. 100. 66.66 G 60. 25. 80. H 60. 0. 100. I 50. 33.33 0. J 66.66 50. 50. K 60. 85.71 85.71 L 42.85 57.14 40. M 70. 33.33 66.66 N 50. 60. 40. O 50. 71.42 42.85 P 50. 0. 50. Q 100. 100. 66.66 NET 1022.84 830.93 935.75 R 60.16 48.87 55.04 131 Discussion. No consistent pattern of improvement exists in the match of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and campers reported outcomes. In fact, there is much variability; for example, Counse- lors A, B, F, G, H, L, M, N, O, and P. Two in particu- lar show a significant amount of variability. Counselor H goes from 60% to 0% to 100%. Counselor P goes from 50% to 0%, back to 50%. Only three counselors had slight gains: Counselor C, 50% for Groups I and II to 55.55% for Group III; Counselor E, 60% fin: Group I to 75% for Groups II and III; and Counselor K, 60% for Group I to 85.71% for Groups II and III. Four counselors show a lessening of similarity: D, 60% to 20% to 0%; Counselor I, 50% to 33.33% to 0%; Counselor J, 66.66% to 50% for Groups II and III; and Counselor Q, 100% for Groups I and II and 66.66% for Group III. The variability can also be seen in camp counselor means. The mean for degree: of similarity' went from 60.16% to 48.87% to 55.04%. The camp counselors never recovered. Figure 4.5 illustrates the variability. The next step is to examine for gender-related difference in camp counselors with reference to similar- ity (n3 camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes. Analytic Question 3.4 examines the gender-related difference in camp counselors. 132 CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS Degree of Similarity 100 90 80 70 60 50 \//_.o 40 30 20 10 I II III CAMPER REPORTED OUTCOMES FIGURE 4.5 SUMMARY OF CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS AND CAMPER REPORTED OUTCOMES 133 Analytic Question 3.4. In reference to the congru- ency between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes over the three sessions, is there any gender-related difference for the camp counselors? Exp1anation of Question. The purpose of the question is to ascertain gender-related differences in camp counselors. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered camper responses and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every a choices of each camp counselor, the same (3) number of top ranking choices of camper reported outcomes are selected for matching. How many of the a choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper a for the campers? The ratio of choices are then put in percentage form. Finally, the responses of camp counselors are then classified according to gender. Eta. The data from Analytic Question 3.3 (Table 4.24) give the raw scores for each individual camp counselcmx Table 4.26 compares women camp counselors across the three parent groups. 'Table 4.27 compares the men. 131 each case, the degree of similarity is given in precentages. The degree of similarity shown in Tables 4.26 and 4.27 are discussed following the last of these tables. The form of statistical analysis used for Tables 4.26 and 4.27 is the same as that used 134 for Tables 4.11 and 4.12. 135 Table 4.26 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expec- tations of Camper Intentions and Camper Re- ported Outcomes GROUP 1 II III COUNSELOR A 80. 50. 66.66% E 60. 75. 75. G 60. 25. 80. K 60. 85.71 85.71 L 42.85 57.14 40. M 70. 33.33 66.66 N 50. 60. 40- P 50. 0. 50- NET 472.85 386.75 504.03 E 59.10 48.34 63.00 136 Table 4.27 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expecta- tions of Camper Intentions and Camper Repor- ted Outcomes GROUP I II III COUNSELOR B 33.33% 20. % 50. % C 50. 50. 55.55 D 60. 20 0 F 80. 100. 66.66 H 60. 0. 100. I 50. 33.33 0. J 66.66 50. 50. O 50. 71.42 42.85 0 100. 100. 66.66 NET 549.99 444.75 431.72 R 61.11 49.41 47.96 137 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests that some gender—related difference exists with reference to congruency' of camp counselor expec- tations of camper intentions and camper reported outcomes. Across the three camper groups, the mean for women moves from 59.10% to 48.34% to 63.00%. (See Table 4.26.) The mean for men moves from 61.11% to 49.41% to 47.96%. (See Table 4.27.) Women recover from their initial starting point; INN} decline steadily. Figure 4.6 illustrates the gender—related difference. However, the statistical analysis shows that this gender-related difference can not be predicted at a high level of confidence. The F value for gender-related difference is 1.16, which is not significant at the .01 level. Analytic Questions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 consid- ered the fulfillment pattern as camper reported out- comes. Another way to consider fulfillment pattern is to examine trends in items. Trends are the subject for analytic question 3.5. 138 100 90 80 70 6 0 '~ - //‘ 50 C3. 40 30 20 CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS Degree of Similarity ‘0 ———=women 0 ---=men I II III CAMPER REPORTED OUTCOMES FIGURE 4.6 SUMMARY OF WOMEN AND MEN CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS AND CAMPER REPORTED OUTCOMES 139 Analytic Question 3.5. To what extent are the items evidencing pre-to-post upward movement in rank of preference, reported by all campers for each given week, predicted by each camp counselor as an anticipated camper initial expectation? Exp1anation of Question. Since the fulfillment pattern of campers is also considered as trends, it is necessary to ascertain which items show a trend and how camp counselor choices compare with the trends. The question is answered from the data of camper rank ordered responses and choices of camp counselor expecta- tions of camper intentions. Responses of campers evi- dencing upward movement of two or more positions in rank orderings of initial expectations (pre) and reported outcomes (post) across the three camper groups are matched with choices of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. Da_ta. Item 5, braiding, moved from 16th to 13th position for Group I, from 15th to 13th for Group II, and from 16th to 13th for Group III. This is the only item that evidenced upward movement across the three camper groups. Camp Counselors G, L, and. P include item 5 in their choices of expectations of camper inten- tions. For Counselors G and. L it was included for one of the three camper groups. For Counselor P, item 5 was the choice for each of the three camper groups. All of these camp counselors were women. Discussion. Similarity of camp counselor predictions 140 and camper fulfillment pattern (trends) is low. Three of seventeen counselors (G, L, enui EU predicted item 5 as an anticipated camper initial expectation. Summary. The following statements are ea summary of findings concerning research question three. 1. Camper reported outcomes are highly correlated across camper groups. 2. Camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes are significantly correlated. 3. Similarity of camp counselor predictions and camper fulfillment patterns (trends) are low. 141 RESEARCH QUESTION 4 Research question four states: To what extent do parents report outcomes that are concurrent with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? The fourth research question probes the similarities and dissimilarities of parent reported outcomes with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expec- tations (n5 camper intentions. Parent reported outcomes are the camp experiences their children talk about that were worthwhile, since camp. The fourth research question has five analytic questions. These .analytic questions and their findings follow. Analytic Question 4.1. To what extent are the reported outcomes of the three groups of parents similar? Explanation of Question. Since there are three groups of parents, it is necessary to ascertain similar- ities between groups. The question is answered by the data from the parent responses amalgamated in the form of a rank ordering. Each response is equal to a unit. of one. .All similar responses are added for each itenl with the sums for each item rank ordered. papa. The findings for the three groups of parents are presented on the following pages. Table 4.28 shows the choices indicated by parents, group by group, pre- sented as raw scores. The parents were free to choose more than one item. The highest distribution for parents 142 is item 2, making new friends; 36 of 48 for Group I, 33 of 46 for Group II, and 62 of 68 for Group III. The lowest is item 11, canoe trips; 14 (n? 48 for Group I, 8 of 46 for Group II, and 16 of 68 for Group III. Table 4.29 shows the ranking for parent reported out- comes. The statistical analysis design for Table 4.29 is the same as the one used for Table 4.2. The correla- tion of parent reported outcomes for Groups I and II is .783 with a Z of 3.91; for Groups II and III, .81 with a Z of 4.17; for Groups I and III, .839 with a Z of 4.52. All calculations are significant. at the .01 level. 143 Table 4.28 Indicated Choices Made by Parents Concerning Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N:48 N:46 N268 7 18 23 1. ARCHERY % 33 62 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 16 11 16 3. RIFLERY 16 17 29 4. GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 13 12 29 5. BRAIDING 7 10 17 6. BETTER ATHLETE B 25 38 7.NATURE and WILDLIFE m 28 44 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 40 34 46 9. CAMPING TRIPS 8 12 20 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 14 8 16 11.CANOE TRIPS 18 21 28 12 LIVE OUTDOORS 1O 18 16 13. SWIM and DIVE 25 18 39 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 23 15 35 15- ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 35 35 59 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 144 Table 4. 29 Rankings: Parent Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N=48 N=46 N=68 15-5 8 11 1. ARCHERY 2 3 1 2.MAKING NEW FRIENDS 9.5 14 15 3. RIFLERY 9.5 10 8.5 4.GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 12 12.5 8.5 5. BRAIDING 15.5 15 13 6. BETTER ATHLETE 4 5 6 7. N A'TLJR E a11d WILDLIFE 5 4 4 8.SKILLS FOR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 1 2 3 9.CAMPING TRIPS 14 12.5 12 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 11 16 15 ll.CANOE TRIPS 8 6 10 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 13 8 15 13. SWIM and DIVE 6 8 5 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 7 11 7 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 3 1 2 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS 145 Discussion. Parent reported outcomes are highly correlated across parent groups. This high correlation is seen in items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16. Item 2, making new friends, item 9, camping trips, and item 16, working and playing with campers of the same age, are the top three choices for time parents. Some intergroup differences exist for items 1, 3, and 13, for which there is no plausible reason. The next step is to compare the parent reported outcomes with camper initial expectations. Analytic question 4.2 examines the match between parent reported outcomes and camper initial expectations. 146 Analytic Question 4.2. To what extent are the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and parent reported outcomes for each of the three camper/parent groups similar? Explanation of Qpestion. The purpose of the questioi is 11) ascertain sindlarities SUI camper initial expecta- tions and parent reported outcomes. 13m: question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of camper initial expectations and parent reported outcomes. The two rank orderings are matched showing the amount of difference for each of the three camper/ parent groups. 2232- Table 4.30 gives the findings for each of the three camper/parent groups. The norm is 162 for camper/parent sets; the distribution being 48, 46, and 68, respectively. In Group I the rank orderings of camper initial expectations and parent reported outcomes have a correlation of .518 with a Z of 2.13. In Group II the correlation is .613 with a Z of 2.62. In Group III, the correlation is .463 with a Z of 1.86. The correlations for Groups I and III are not signifi- cant at the .01 level. The correlation for Group II is significant. 147 Table 4.30 A Comparison of Rank Orders of Camper Initial Expectations and Parent Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N=48 N=46 N=68 CIE PRO CIE PRO CIE PRO 9 15.5 15 8 6 11 l. ARCHERY l 2 1.5 3 3 1 2. M A K IAIG AJE W FRIENDS 11.5 9.5 l4 14 11 15 3. RIFLERY 3 9.5 3 10 l 8.5 4.GETTING ALONG BIET'TEER WIITIT OTHER PEOPLE 16 12 16 12.5 16 8.5 5. BRAIDING 7.5 15.5 9.5 15 8 13 6. BETTER ATHLETE 11.5 4 12.5 5 9 6 7. N A'TLJR E ar1d WILDLIFE 5 5 4 4 2 4 8. S K 11.1.8 FCDR BEING A GOOD CAMPER 5 l 5 2 7 3 9.CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 14 8 12.5 5 12 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 7.511 11 16 13 15 11.CANOE TRIPS 11.5 8 7 6 ll 10 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 15 13 9.5 8 15 15 13. SWIM and DIVE 5 6 6 8 l4 5 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 14 7 12,5 Ll 11 '7 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 2 3 ]”5 l 4 2 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS CIE: Camper Initial Expectations PRO: Parent Reported Outcomes 148 Discussion. No consistent pattern of similarity exists between camper initial expectations and parent reported outcomes. Examples of similarity are items 2, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 16. The highest ranking is item 2, making new friends; braiding, itenl 5, the lowest. Some intergroup) differences are itenl 3, getting' along better with others, item 6, being a better athlete, and item 7, nature and wildlife. In items 3 and 5 the campers had a higher initial expectation than what the parents reported. For item 6, campers had a lower initial expectation than what the parents reported. The next analytic question deals with the match between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes. 149 Analytic Question 4.3. To what extent are individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered parent reported outcomes for each of the three parent groups similar? Explanation of Question. The purpose of the question is to ascertain similarities between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered responses of parent reported outcomes and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. iFor every 1} choices of each camp counselor, the same (a) number' of top :ranking’ choices (n5 parent reported outcomes are selected for matching. How many of the a choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper a for the parents? In the case of Counselor A (Table 4.31), for Group I, the counselor marked 5 items. The top 5 ranked items of the campers are then selected for matching with the counselor's 5 choices. The comparison of the items shows that 3 :matched. Therefore, the statement read 3 of 5. .Qata. The following' pages show iflua findings for each individual camp counselor. Table 4.31 is a summary of comparison (NE individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes across the three parent groups. The top three counselors with highest congruence are Q, (7 of 8); K (16 of 19); 150 and E (17 of 21). Counselors B (4 of 10), D (6 of 14), and I (7 of 16) have the lowest congruence. Table 4.32 compares each individual camp counselor across the three parent groups, with the findings presented in percentages. The form of statistical analysis used for Table 4.32 is the same as the one used for Table 4.10. 151 Table 4.31 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes: Raw Scores GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 3 of 5 3 of 6 2 of 3 B l of 3 2 of 5 l of 2 C 4 of 6 5 of 8 6 of 9 D 3 of 5 3 of 5 0 of 4 E 4 of 5 6 of 8 7 of 8 F 4 of 5 0 of l 3 of 3 G 3 of 5 2 of 4 4 of 5 H 4 of 5 l of 4 2 of 2 I 3 of 6 3 of 6 1 of 4 J 5 of 6 3 of 6 5 of 8 K 4 of 5 6 of 7 6 of 7 L 3 of 7 5 of 7 3 of 5 M 8 of 10 l of 3 2 of 3 N 3 of 4 4 of 5 3 of 5 O 3 of 4 6 of 7 4 of 7 P 6 of 10 l of 5 8 of 10 152 Table 4.32 A Comparison of Individual Camp Counselor Expec- tations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes: Percentages GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 50. 66.66% B 33.33 40. 50. C 66.66 62.50 66.66 D 60. 60, 0. E 80. 75. 87.51 F 80. O. 100. G 60. 50. 80. H 80. 25. 100. I 50. 50. 25. J 83.33 50. 62.50 K 80. 85.71 85.71 L 42.85 71.42 60. M 80. 33.33 66.66 N 75. 80. 60. O 75. 85.71 57.14 P 60. 20. 80. Q 100. 50. 100. NET 1166.17 808.67 1147.84 2 68.59 47.56 67.52 153 Discussion. Camp counselors vary in degree of similarity between their expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes. In fact, there is much variability; for example, Counselors A, C, E, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, O, P, and Q. Counselor F shows a signifi- cant amount of variaiblity; 80% to 0% to 100%. Counselors B and K show some improvement; for B, 33.33% to 40% to 50%, and for K, 80% to 85.71%. Counselors D and I show a lessening of similarity; D moves from 60% to 0%, I moves from 50% to 25%. Variability is also seen in camp counselor means. The camp counselor degree of similarity mean goes from 68.59% to 47.56%, back to 67.52%. Figure 4.7 illustrates the variability. 100 U) m 90 E 3 80 EIJ H 2 .‘3 70 . 6 2 ' q .4 60 5% m 50 S 8 40 ' O U 8 30 E ‘6 20 <2 G) U Q 10 0 I II III PARENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FIGURE 4.7 SUMMARY OF CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS AND PARENT REPORTED OUTCOMES 154 Is there a gender-related difference in camp coun- selors with regard to congruence between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes? Question 4.4. asks this analytic question. 155 Analytic Question 4.4. In reference to the congru- ency between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes over the three sessions, is there a gender-related difference for the camp counselors? Explanation of Question. The purpose of the question is to ascertain gender-related differences in camp counselors. The question is answered from the data of rank ordered responses. of parent reported outcomes and the number of choices for each individual camp counselor. For every a choices of each camp counselor, the same (a) number of top ranking choices of parent reported outcomes are selected for matching. How many of the a choices that are marked by the camp counselor are, in fact, in the upper a for the parents? The ratio of choices are then put in percentage form. Finally, the responses of camp counselors are classified according to gender. Da_t_a. The data from Analytic Question 4.3 (Table 4.31) gives the raw scores for each individual camp counselcmu Table 4.33 compares women camp counselors across the three parent groups. ‘Table 4.34 compares the men. In each case the degree of similarity is given in percentages. The degree of similarity shown in Tables 4.33 and 4.34 are discussed following the last of these tables. The form of statistical analysis used for these tables is the same as was used for Tables 4.11 and 4.12. 156 Table 4.33 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Expec- tations of Camper Intentions and Parent Re- ported Outcomes GROUP I II III COUNSELOR A 60. % 50. % 66.66% E 80. 75. 87.51 G 60. 50. 80. K 80. 85.71 85.71 L 42.85 71.42 60. M 80. 33.33 66.66 N 75. 80. 60. P 60. 20. 80. NET 537.85 465.46 586.54 E 67.23 58.18 73.31 157 Table 4.34 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Expecta- tions of Camper Intentions and Parent Re- ported Outcomes GROUP I II III COUNSELOR B 33.33% 40. % 50. % C 66.66 62.50 66.66 D 60. 60 0 F 80. 0. 100. H 80. 25. 100. I 50. 50. 25. J 83.33 50. 62.50 0 75 85.71 57 14 Q 100. 50. 100. NET 628.32 423.20 561.30 E 69.81 47.02 62.36 158 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests that some gender-related difference exists in congruency between camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes. Across the three parent groups, the mean distribution for women is 67.23%, 58.18%, 73.31% (See Table 4.33.) The mean distribution for men is 69.81%, 47.02%, and 62.36% for the three parent groups, respectively. (See Table 4.34.) The lessening of similarity for women camp counselors is not as drastic as men. Men start higher but never fully recover. Figure 4.8 il- lustrates the gender-related difference. However, the statistical analysis shows that this gender-related difference can not be predicted at a high level of confidence. The F value for gender-related difference is 2.29, which is not significant at the .01 level. A related question concerns the similarity between expectations of camper intentions and reported outcomes of parents; analytic question 4.5 probes this similarity. 159 CAMP COUNSELOR MEANS Degree of Similarity 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -—-=women —--=men I II III PARENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FIGURE 4.8 SUMMARY OF WOMEN AND MEN COUNSELOR MEANS AND PARENT REPORTED OUTCOMES 160 Analytic Question 4.5. In reference to the rank orderings of parent expectations of camper intentions and reported outcomes for each of the three groups, are they similar? Explanantion of Qfiuestion. Analytic question 4.5 examines the match between expectations of camper inten- tions and reported outcomes of parents. The question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of parent expectations of camper intentions and reported outcomes for each of the three groups. The two rank orderings are matched showing the amount of difference for each of the three groups. Eta. Table 4.35 presents the findings for each of the three parent groups. Examples of similarity are items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 16. In Group I, the rank orderings of parent expectations and their reported outcomes have a correlation of .814 with a Z of 4.22. The correlation in Group II is .794 with a Z of 4.01. In. Group> III the correlation is .693 with a Z of 3.17. A11 correlations are significant. 161 Table 4.35 A Comparison of Parent Expectations of Camper Intentions and Parent Reported Outcomes GROUP I II III N248 N=46 N=69 PECI PRO PECI PRO PECI PRO IO 15.5 IO 8 7 11 l. ARCHERY 3.5 2 2 3 2 l 2. M AI(I:N(3 [NEIW FRIENDS 7.5 9.5 IO 14 8.5 15 3. RIFLERY 11.5 9.5 IO IO 11 8.5 (4. GETTING ALONG BEETCFEI? WIITPi OTHER PEOPLE 15.5 12 10 12.5 16 8.5 5. BRAIDING 15.5 15.5 16 15 14 13 6. BETTER ATHLETE 2 4 4 5 3 6 7. N A'TLJR E aITd WILDLIFE 5 5 3 4 6 4 8. S K 11.1.3 F‘O R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 35 1 6 2 10 3 9.CAMPING TRIPS 11.5 14 15 1233 14 12 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 75 11 13 16 12 15 1L CANOE TRIPS 13.5 8 10 (3 8.5 10 12.LIVE OUTDOORS 13.5 13 14 8 14 15 13. SWIM and DIVE 9 6 5 8 4.5 5 14. BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 6 7 7 11 4.5 7 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 1 3 1 1 1 2 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS PECI: Parent Expectation of Camper Intentions PRO: Parent Reported Outcomes 162 Discussion. Parent expectations of camper intentions are significantly correlated with their reported out- comes. For example, parent expectation of camper inten- tions, item 2, making new friends is the same that the parents report as what the camper talked about as being worthwhile, since camp. The same thing can be shown for iixml 4, getting along better with people; item 6, better athlete; item. 7, nature and. wildlife; item 8, good sportsmanship; and itenl 16, working and playing with campers the same age. Summary. Summary statements of findings concerning research question four follow. 1. Parent reported outcomes are highly correlated across parent groups. 2. Camp counselors vary in degree of similarity between their expectations of camper intentions and parent reported outcomes. 3. Parent expectations of camper intentions are significantly correlated with their reported outcomes. 163 RESEARCH QUESTION 5 Research question five states: To what extent ch) parents report outcomes that are congruent with camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? This question probes the similarities and dissimi- larities between camper reported outcomes, parent re- ported outcomes, and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The fifth research question has two analytic questions which are examined together below. Analytic Question 5.1. To what extent are the rank orderings of parent reported outcomes and camper reported outcomes for each of the three camper/parent groups similar? Analyticnguestion 5.2. To what extent are the rank orderings of camper reported outcomes, parent reported outcomes and camp counseler expectations of camper intentions similar? Explanation of Question. The purposes of the two questions are to ascertain similarities between camper reported outcomes, parent reported outcomes, and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The question is answered from the data of the rank ordered responses of camper reported outcomes, parent reported cmtcomes, and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. The three rank orderings are 164 matched showing the amount of difference for each of the three camper/parent groups. DaEa. Table 4.36 gives the findings for each of the three camper/parent groups. Examples of similar- ities are items 2, 7, 8, 15, and 16. In Group I, the rank orderings of camper reported outcomes and parent reported outcomes have a correlation of .779 with a Z of 3.91. The correlation for camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations is .419 with. a Z of 1.65. In Group II the correlation for camper/parent is .682 with a Z of 3.07. The camper/counselor correla- tion is .261 with a Z of .95. In Group III, the correla- tion for camper/parent is .745 with a Z of 3.56. The camper/counselor correlation is .255 with a Z of .96. All the correlations for camper/parent groups are signi- ficant. All the correlations for the camper/counselors groups are not significant. 165 Table 4.36 Summary of Comparison of Camper Reported Out- comes , Parent Reported Outcomes and Camp Coun- selor Expectations of Camper Intentions GROUP I II III N=48 N=17 N=46 N=17 N=48 N=17 CRO PRO CECI CRO PRO CECI CRO PRO CECI 12 15.5 7 12.5 8 6.5 11 11 8.5 1. ARCHERY l 2 l l 3 l 1 l l 2.14AI(IN(3 NEVJ FRIENDS 13 9.5 10.5 14.5 14 9.5 14 15 6.5 3. RIFLERY 5 9.5 12.5 3 10 12 3 8.5 13.5 1L GETTING ALONG BETTER WITH OTHER PEOPLE 15 12 12.5 14.5 12.5 14.5 15 8.5 13.5 5. BRAIDING 10 15.5 16 10 15 16 9 13 15.5 6. BETTER ATHLETE 8.5 4 4 8 5 4 12.5 6 4.5 7.N.AT(JR13 arld WILDLIFE 5 5 6 6 4 9.5 14 4 4.5 8.5;KIILL.S F()R BEING A GOOD CAMPER 3 l 2 7 2 2 6 3 3 9.CAMPING TRIPS 10.5 U4 14.5 H) 12.5 14.5 '7 12 15.5 10. GOOD SPORTSMAN- SHIP 16 ll 5 16 16 6.5 16 15 6.5 11. CANOE TRIPS 8.5 8 8.5 12.5 6 6.5 10 10 10.5 12. LIVE OUTDOORS 14 13 10.5 5 8 12 12.5 15 10.5 13. SWIM and DIVE 5 6 14.5 14 8 l2 5 5 12 14» BE RESPONSIBLE and INDEPENDENT 7 7 8.5 10 11 6.5 8 7 8.5 15. ROW BOATS and PADDLE CANOES 2 3 3 2 l 3 2 2 2 16. WORK/PLAY WITH CAMPERS CRO: Camper Reported Outcomes PRO: Parent Reported Outcomes CECI: Camp Counselor Expectations Of Camper Intentions 166 Discussion. Camper reported outcomes and parent reported outcomes are significantly correlated. Camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations are not significantly correlated. Congruence is shown for items 2, 7, 8, 15, and 16. However, in some cases, only two of the three sets of significant persons match. For example, canoe trips (item 11), are ranked similarly by campers and parents at the bottom, whereas camp counselors ranked it in the top half. Being responsible (item 14) received a much higher ranking with camper and parents than with camp counselors. For camp counse- lors and parents, better athlete (item 6) is much lower than for campers. 167 RESEARCH QUESTION 6 Research question six states: In what ways do camp counselor expec- tations of camper intentions change over time (nature through experience)? Is the pattern of change in the maturing process in the direction of camper initial expectations (n: parent. expec- tations of camper intentions, or is it neither? The sixth research question probes the maturation and direction of change in maturation of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions. Counselor expecta- tions are examined for maturation through experience and whether the pattern of change is in the direction of camper initial expectations or parent expectations of camper intentions or neither. Research question six has five analytic questions. These five analytic questions with the findings follow. Analytic Question 6.1. To what extent do camp counselor expectations of camper intentions vary over the three sessions? Discussion. As stated earlier the findings for analytic question 1.4 suggest that camp counselor ex- pectations of camper intentions are highly correlated. Thirteen (n: the sixteen. items over the 'three sessions support the finding. Analytic Question 6.2. To what extent are the rank orderings of camping initial expectations, and parent and camp counselor expectations of camper inten- tions for each of the three week similar? 168 Discussion. The finding stated in analytic question 2.3 shows camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations (ME camper intentions are run: significantly correlated. However, the correlation of parent and camp counselor expectations is significant. Analytic Question 6.3. What is the degree of fit between individual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper initial expectation rank orderings for each of the three camper groups? _Da_t_a. The data from Analytic Question 1.5 (Table 4.10) are Inuai in determining individual camp counselor gross percentages for similarities of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and camper initial expectations. (Hue top three counselors with the highest percentage of congruence are Counselons F (88.88%), Q (77.77%), and K (72.71%). The three counselors with the lowest percentage of congruence are Counselors 1 (27. 77%), D (33.33%), and H (36.66%). Taking the camp counselors as a group and combining the group means for each session produces an overall mean or grand mean of 53.51% for the three sessions. The data from Table 4.10 are also used for determining amount of change in the maturational (functional) and historical (event-experience) change period for the counselors. The three assessments embrace two periods of maturational and historical change. Figure 4.9 illustrates the maturational and historical change periods. (Maturation 169 and history-related change are not disentangled in the study.) Counselor A is used as an example. For Counselor A, the change score from Session I to Session II goes down 10 percentage points; from Session II to Session III goes up 16.66 percentage points; and from Session I and III goes up 6.66 percentage points. SESSION I SESSION II SESSION III 60%*F { 50%fl5 { 66.66%* MATURATIONAL AND MATURATIONAL AND HISTORICAL CHANGE HISTORICAL CHANGE PERIOD PERIOD L J I *Percentage of similarity of Counselor A's and camper rank ordered responses. FIGURE 4.9 MATURATIONAL AND HISTORICAL CHANGE PERIODS Table 4.37 shows the amount of change from Session I to II, from Session II to III and from Session I to III. The three camp counselors with the highest positive change are Counselors E (up 20), B (up 16.67), and. N (up .15). The three camp counselors with the highest negative change are Counselors D (down 60), I (down 50), and F (down 33.34). Discussion. Even though the camp counselor patterns of change are negative over time; first period (down 170 Table 4.37 A Comparison of Camp Counselor Maturational or Historical Change Periods and Camper Initial Expectations Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR A (10. ) 16.66 6.66 B 6.67 10. 16.67 C 0 5.55 5 55 D (20. ) (40. ) (60. ) E 15. 5. 20. F 0. (33.34) (33.34) G (10. ) 10. 0. H (60. ) 50. (10. ) I (16.67) (33.33) (50. ) J (16.66) (12.50) (29.16) K 25.71 (14.29) 11.42 L 0. ( 2.85) ( 2.85) M (26.67) 33.33 6.66 N 35. (20. ) 15. O ( 3.58) (14.28) (17.86) P (20. ) 30. 10. Q 33.34 (33.34) 0. NET (67.86) (43.39) (111.25) E ( 3.99) ( 2.55) ( 6.54) ( ): Negative number 171 67.86), second period (down 43.39), for a total of (down 11.25), the trend can not be predicted at a high level of confidence (.01 level). Analytic Question 6.4” To what extent are individ- ual camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and rank ordered parent expectations of camper intentions for each of the three parent groups similar? Dat_a. The data from Analytic Question 2.4 (Table 4.18) are Lnxxl in determining individual camp counselor mean percentages for similarities of camp counselor expectations of camper intentions and parent expecta- tions of camper intentions over the three groups. The three counselors with the highest percentage of congruence are K (79.04%), O (77.77%), and O (72.61%). The three with the lowest percentage of congruence are Counselors I (33.33%), B (34.44%), and D (41.66%). The grand mean for camp counselors as a group is 57.97%. The data from Table 4.18 are also used for determining amount of change in the historical change period. Table 4.38 presents the changes from Session I to II, from Session II to III, and from Session I to III. The three counselors with the highest positive» change are Counselors H (up 40), M (up 20), and B (up 16.67). 172 Table 4. M3 A Comparison of Camp Counselor Maturational or Historical Change Periods and Parent Ex— pectations of Camper Intentions Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR A (26.67) 33.33 6.66 B (13.33) 30. 16.67 C 0 16.66 16 66 D (20. ) (15. ) (35. ) E 27.51 (25.01) ( 2.50) F (80. ) 66.66 (13.34) G (10. ) 10. 0. H (60. ) 100. 40. I 0. (50. ) (50. ) J (33.33) 25. ( 8.33) K 5.71 (14.29) ( 8.58) L 14.29 (17.14) ( 2.85) M (46.67) 66.67 20. N 5. (20. ) (15. ) O 10.71 (28.57) (17.86) P (80. ) 70. (10. ) Q 33.34 (33.34) 0. NET (273.44) 214.97 (58.47) E (16.09) 12.65 (3.44) ( ): Negative number 173 The three counselors with the highest negative change are Counselors I (down 50), D (down 35), and 0 (down l 7 . 86) . Discussion . The pattern of change for the camp counselors varies, but with an overall decline. The change from Session I to II is down 16.09; Session II to III is up 12.65; and Session I to III is down 3.44. The pattern of change is not significant at the .01 level. Analytic Question 6.5. To what extent is there any gender-related difference in this pattern for the camp counselors? Da_ta. When comparing women and men camp counselor expectations and camper initial expectations, the data from Analytic Question 1.6 (Tables 4.11 and 4.12) are used in determining amount of change in the historical period. Table 4.39 presents the changes for women; Table 4 . 4 0 , for men . Women counselors change pattern is higher than men . Women counselors have an overall mean increase of 8.48; while men have a mean decline of (19.79). When comparing women and men camp counselor expec- tations and parent expectations, the data from Analytic Question 2.5 (Tables 4.19 and 4.20) are used in deter- mining amount of change in the historical period. Table 4.41 presents the changes for women; Table 4.42 174 for men. Both women and men show a decline in change pattern; women counselors have a mean. of (down .91); for men, (down 5.69). 175 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Camper Initial Expectations Table 4.39 Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR A (10. ) 16.66 V 6.66 E 15. 5. 20. G (10. ) 10 0 K 25.71 (14.29 ) 11.42 L 0 ( 2.85 ) ( 2.85) M (26.67 ) 33.33 6.66 N 35. (20. ) 15 P (20. ) 30. 10. NET 9.04 58.85 67.89 i 1.13 7.35 8.48 Negative number 176 Table 4.40 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Camper Initial Expectations Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR B 6.67 10. 16.67 C 0. 5.55 5.55 D (20. ) (40. ) (60.00) F 0. (33.34) (33.34) H (60. ) 50. (10. ) I (16.67) (33.33) (50. ) J (16.66) (12.50) (29.16) 0 ( 3.58) (14.28) (17.86) Q 33.34 (33.34) 0. NET (76.90) (101.24) (178.14) E ( 8.54) (11.25) (19.79) ( ): Negative number 177 Table 4.41 A Comparison of Women Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Parent Expectations Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR A (26.67) 33.33 6.66 E 27.51) (25.01) 2.50 G (10. ) 10. 0. K 5.71 (14.29) ( 8.58) L 14.29 (17.14) ( 2.85) M (46.67) 66.67 20. N 5. (20. ) (15. ) P (80. ) 70. (10. ) NET (110.83) 103.56 ( 7.27) E (13.86) 12.95 ( .91) ( ): Negative number 178 Table 4.42 A Comparison of Men Camp Counselor Patterns of Change With Reference to Parent Expectations Changes of scores from Session I to II II to III I to III COUNSELOR B (13.33) 30. 16.67 C 0. 16.66 16.66 D (20. ) (15. ) (35. ) F (80. ) 66.66 (13.34) H (60. ) 100. 40. I 0. (50. ) (50. ) J (33.33) 25. ( 8.33) O 10.71 (28.57) (17.86) Q 33 34 (33 34) 0 NET (162.61) 111.41 (51.20) R (18.07) 12.38 ( 5.69) ( ): Negative number 179 Discussion. The data indicate a pattern which suggests gender differences. However, these gender differences can not be predicted at a high level of confidence (.01 level). Women camp counselors evidence a change pattern more in the direction of campers than do the men. When comparing the change pattern of camp counselors with camper initial expectations, women show more similarity, men less. When comparing the change pattern with parent expectations of camper inten- tions, women counselors do not decline as much as the men. Summary. None (H? the findings concerning patterns of change are significant. SUMMARY Intentions and their fulfillments are a major concern of educational effectiveness. In a: resident summer camping experience, the participants bring diverse sets of .intentions and. their fulfillments. Tflma study examined campers, parents, and camp counselors. In conducting the study, the following statements are a summary of the findings. Research Question 1 What is the nature and extent of congruence: of camper initial expecta- tions and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions at £1 given camp? 180 l. Camper initial expectations are highly correlated across groups. 1.1 High ranked expectations for campers are general in nature. 1.2 Low ranked expectations for campers are specific in nature. 1.3 Some gender-related differences exist in camper initial expectations. 2. Camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are highly correlated across the three sessions. Research Question 2 To what extent are parent expectations of camper intentions consonant with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? 1. Parent expectations of camper intentions are highly correlated across groups. 2. Parent and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions are significantly correlated. 3. Camper initial expectations and the expectations of parents and camp counselors are not signi- ficantly correlated. ResearchaQuestion 3 To what extent is the fulfillment pattern of campers convergent on the expectations of camper intentions held by the camp counselors? l. Camper reported outcomes are highly' correlated across camper groups. 181 Camper initial expectations and camper reported outcomes are significantly correlated. Similarity of camp counselor predictions and camper fulfillment patterns (trends) is low. To what extent do parents report: outcomes that are concurrent with camper initial expectations and camp counselor expectations of camper Parent reported outcomes are highly correlated across parent groups. 2. 3. Research Question 4 intentions? 1. 2. Parent expectations of camper intentions are significantly correlated with their reported outcomes. Researcthuestion 5 To what extent do parents report outcomes that are concurrent with camper reported outcomes and camp counselor expectations of camper intentions? Camper reported outcomes and parent reported outcomes are significantly correlated. Research Question 6 1. In what ways do camp counselor expec- tations of camper intentions change over time (nature through experience)? Is the pattern of change in the matur- ing process in the direction of camper initial expectations or parent expec- tations of camper intentions, or is it neither? The patterns of change in the maturing process in camp counselor expectations of camper inten— tions are not significant. Chapter V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study explored intentions and their fulfillments of three significant sets of persons in a resident summer camping experience -— campers, parents and camp counselors. Intentions and fulfillments are an integral part of educational effectiveness. A major concern for resident summer camps is the explicitness of communi- cating about what the camp is prepared to do. The findings of the study are to add to a knowledge base so that camp management can do a more explicit job of communicating the purpose and goals of the camp to the parents. Also, by taking into account what it is that campers are hoping to do; adjustments within the camping structure can be made that move camp manage- ment closer to what those expectations tend to be. CONCLUSIONS Campers consider' general objectives to be more important than specific objectives. This conclusion concerns specificity of objectives. The data from analytic question 1.1, suggest that campers are more interested in general objectives than camp management. The finding is supported by campers re- ported outcomes (Analytic Question 3.1). Camp promotional 182 183 literature, in contrast, tends to emphasize specific objectives. The appeal for camp is in the specifics, e.g. archery, riflery. Educational objectives clearly and specifically stated can help as well as hamper the ends of instruction. Specified objectives have value as a guidance mechanism for educational planning. By defining these educational results as clearly as possible, camp management has a most useful set of criteria for selecting content, for suggesting learning activities, for deciding the kinds of teaching procedures to follow, in fact, to carry on all the further steps of educational planning, e.g., evaluation and redevelopment of curriculum. In summation, specific objectives have value as a guidance mechanism for selection and management in the education process. Educational objectives clearly and specifically stated can also hamper the ends of education. Over- reliance on the specification of objectives as a guidance mechanism may produce a kind of mechanistic response that might cause overlooking of opportunities. Dewey (1916) feels that the possibility exists for stifling flexibility which is knowing when to alter a goal, when to explore new interactions, and when to shift strategies. The responses of Illich (1973) to educational objectives is stronger. Specifying of objectives could be a tool that is anticonvivial. The growth of a tool beyond 184 a certain point increases regimentation, dependency, exploitation, and impotence. A tool can grow out of man's control, first to become his master and finally to become his executioner. Atkin believes that rigid adherence to specifying the behavioral outcome (n3 all instructional activities would tend to decrease their educational relevance and eliminate many of the worthwhile experiences from the curriculum. He adds four cautionary notes to the use of behavioral objectives in curriculum design: If identification (fl? all worthwhile outcomes in behavioral terms can be commonly accepted and expected, then it is inevitable that, over time, the curriculum will tend to emphasize those elements which have been thus identified. Important outcomes which are detected only with great difficulty and which are translated only rarely in behavior- al terms tend to atrophy. . . . Certain types of innovations are hampered and frustrated by early demands for behav- ioral statements of objectives. Fur- ther, early articulation of behavioral objectives by the curriculum developer inevitably tends to limit the range (n5 his exploration. . . . Considerable educational potential is lost when certain concepts are taught didactical- ly. Instructional priorities may bring about a loss of desirable spontaneity. . . . There can be a faulty assumption that those attributes which can be measured are the elements that are considered to be most important (1968, p. 28). Atkin's thoughts are also apropos to camping as education. For example, if 61 canm> counselor considers concepts related to sportsmanship of importance to devel- op, the counselor would be naive if he/she decided to 185 undertake the task at 1:00 P.M. on Tuesday of next week. The counselor should realize that learnings related to such an area must be stressed in an appropri- ate context, and the context often cannot be planned. The camping environment is filled ‘with. many" of these "teachable moments." Too many behaviorally stated objectives may stifle these "teachable moments." Fur- ther, Atkin would question the tactics of a camp counselor who has a specific checklist for a nature hike and follows it religiously and fails to respond to individual camper spontaneity and creativity. MacDonald (1965) also takes a position on over- reliance on specified objectives as guidance mechanism. He feels that there is another View besides the rational and technological model. For him, objectives are only known to the teacher in a complete sense after the completion of the teacher's act of instruction. Objec- tives are heuristic devices which provide initiating consequences which become altered in the flow of instruc- tion. It is not a question of what is the teacher trying to accomplish but what is the teacher going to do. Out of the doing comes the accomplishment. A danger also exists in that articulation of speci- fied objectives by camp management inevitably limits the range (ME camper exploration. Camp counselors need to explore with campers, even if the camp counselor is going to do the specifying. Eisner (1969) talks 186 about the exploratory nature of the teacher-student interaction around content. He identifies the role of expressive outcomes. An expressive outcome does not specify the behavior the student is to acquire after having engaged in.