INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good
image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were
deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of
a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small
overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the
first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography,
photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your
xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer
Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have
filmed the best available copy.

University

Microfilms
Internationa!
300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106

8202391

BACON, RONALD ZMTJDA

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FACTORS AND PRACTICES IN SELECTED
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL CAMPING PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D. 1981

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1981
by
Bacon, Ronald Zmuda
All Rights Reserved

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified herewith a check mark V

1.

Glossy photographs or pages

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print

3.

Photographs with dark background

4.

Illustrations are poor copy

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages._Z.

8.

Print exceeds margin requirements

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print

11.

Page(s)
author.

lacking when material received, and not available from school or

12.

Page(s)

seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages numbered

14.

Curling and wrinkled pages

15.

Other

. Text follows.

University
Microfilms
International

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FACTORS AND PRACTICES
IN SELECTED RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL CAMPING
PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN
By
Ronald Z. Bacon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum
1981

ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FACTORS AND PRACTICES
IN SELECTED RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL CAMPING
PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN
by
Ronald Z. Bacon
Michigan is credited with being one of the birthplaces of the
residential school camping movement. Beginning in the 1940s, this
movement accelerated until the mid-1970s, at which time the growth
ceased and the number of programs began to decline.
This study was designed to compare the factors and practices
of a select group of Michigan residential school camping programs to
determine the reasons for that decline. Furthermore, this study
wanted to examine the reasons why certain programs continued to oper­
ate, seeking the support mechanisms needed to maintain the resident
camping program. Considerable personnel and financial resources have
been expended on resident camping programs. Data from this study
could serve as a reference to school districts considering the con­
tinuation, termination or initiation of a camp program.
Identified were 181 resident school camp programs who used the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Centers over a fiveyear period. The investigation focused on 29 school districts who
continuously camped at the DNR Centers from 1974 through 1979, one or

Ronald Z. Bacon

more times each year. The comparison group was 25 school districts
who camped only in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76 and then ceased to camp at
the DNR Centers. Fourteen of those continued to camp, but used other
facilities, while 11 terminated their camping programs.
All 54 school districts were surveyed in the sunnier of 1980
through a questionnaire on these seven general areas of camp develop­
ment: administrative support, teacher, community, and student involve­
ment, curriculum, finances, and evaluation. These emphasis areas
(factors) were selected after a review of the writings on resident
school camping indicated they were crucial to the development of the
program.
Responses to 33 of the 42 questions in this survey were
grouped to assess the relative degree of importance of these general
areas. Using multivariate analysis of variance and Chi square tests,
there was no evidence of any relationship between the seven factors
and the school districts' decision to camp among the three subpopulations. The area of finances did approach the predetermined .05
level of significance, but was not reliable enough to be considered
valid.
This study did indicate that:
1. Administrative support, particularly by the building
principal, was the key to the continuation of the
camp program.
2. A close teacher and administrator relationship was
needed to maintain a quality camping operation.
3. Students should be involved in the camp planning
process.

Ronald Z. Bacon

4. Parents, the Board of Education, and the community
need to be supportive if the camp operation is to
continue.
5. Objective evaluation of the camp program does not
seem to be happening but all respondents desired
and recommended it.
6. Financial support from the school district was
important but the child and parents covered the
majority (80 percent) of the camp costs.
7. Previous camping experiences by teaching staff and
students was not needed for camp continuation.
8. The camp programs typically had 6th, 5th, or 7th
grade students, camping in a group of 80 students,
from a school building of 300 to 400 students, and
came from middle-income families.
Future studies could be made into:
1. Cost effectiveness relationship to the continuation
of the camping program.
2. Financial reasons for dropping a camping program.
3. Reasons why camping programs aren't objectively
evaluated.
4. Effectiveness of teacher pre-service or in-service
training in relationship to the quality of the camp
operation.
5. The role of evaluative data on the continuation,
alteration or cessation of the resident camping
program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation to the members of my
Committee for their guidance and advice: George R. Myers, Chairman,
Howard W. Hickey, Keith P. Anderson, and Glen K. Gerard. Of particu­
lar importance has been David I. Johnson who directed this study and
without whose patience, academic, and personal support this degree
would not have been possible. Grateful acknowledgement is also due
to Necia Black for her time, suggestions, and advice—particularly
relative to the statistical treatment of the data, and to Martie
Carey, who assisted throughout the many manuscripts.
Last, but certainly not least, has been the continued support
given by my family: my parents, Ronald and Sophia Bacon, for they
have always been there when needed; my daughter, Debi, for her
support and understanding; and to my son, Jeff, who endured more than
a son should have to sacrifice whenever a parent undertakes such a
task.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES

v

LIST OF APPENDICES

vi

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

1

Background
Need for Study
Purpose and Importance of Study
Hypotheses
Assumptions
Limitations
Definition of Terms
Overview of Study
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13

Introduction
History of Camping
History of Resident School Camping
Program Development
Role of Administrator
Role of Teacher
Role of Student
Role of Community
Facilities
Evaluation
Summary and Critique
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

13
14
16
17
20
22
24
25
26
27
29
38

Introduction
Controls on the Study and Sample Population
Instrument Design
Hypotheses
Procedure for Analysis
Summary of Study Design

iii

38
39
41
44
45
46

Chapter

Page

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

49

Introduction
Content Validity
Response Rate
Demographic Data
Reliability
Multivariate Test
Study of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis I:
Administrative Support
Hypothesis II: Teacher Involvement
Hypothesis III: Community Involvement
Hypothesis IV: Student Involvement
Hypothesis V:
Curriculum
Hypothesis VI: Finances
Hypothesis VII: Evaluation
Summary of Hypotheses
Other Data

49
49
50
51
55
58
58
60
61
63
64
66
67
69
71
73

V. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS

80

Introduction
Major Conclusions
Support Mechanisms
Other Conclusions
Recommendations for Future Study
Finances
Evaluation
Teachers
Reflections
BIBLIOGRAPHY

80
81
84
84
85
85
86
87
89
94

APPENDICES

104

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

4.1

Respondents to Study

52

4.2

School Districts Cost of Camp

52

4.3

School Building Population

53

4.4

Grades Participating at Camp

53

4.5

Average Size School Camp

54

4.6

Yearly Family Income

54

4.7

Reliability of Scales

56

4.8

Mean Responses According to Scales by Sub-populations
and Univariate Tests of Significance

59

Relative Responsibility for Camping Program
Determination (Question 39)

67

4.9

4.10 Major Reasons Camping Program Is or Is Not Continuing
(Question 42)

69

4.11 Cross-Tabulation of Responses to Question 34--Camp
Evaluation

70

4.12 Responsibility for Evaluation of Camp (Question 34) ...

71

4.13 Mean Response According to Scales

72

4.14 Cross-Tabulation of Responses to Questions 35 and 40 ..

74

v

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix

Page

I. Number of School Groups and Students Using
Michigan DNR Outdoor Centers September through
June 1974-1979
II. Number of Separate Camp Programs and Participants,
1975-1979
III. Michigan Outdoor Centers

105
107
109

IV. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Outdoor
Centers - Capacity
V. Number of Camp Programs Meeting Criteria, Utilizing
DNR Outdoor Centers which Accommodate 85 or More
Campers
VI. Data Card

Ill

113
115

VII. Cover Letter for Survey Instrument Validation
VIII. Survey Instrument

117
119

IX. Questions Assigned to Scales
X. Mean Response for Variables According to Scales

vi

124
127

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
In the past forty years public schools throughout the United
States have tried a variety of curriculum enrichment ideas attempting
to provide alternatives to the traditional four-wall classroom set­
ting. One of these ideas, residential school camping, finds one or
more classes of students and their teachers living, working and
learning in a camp setting during the school week as part of the
established school curriculum.
The school camping movement can be traced to two institu­
tions: the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Life Camps, Incorporated.
Life Camps, a New York State based organization, under the leadership
of L. B. Sharp in the 1930's, provided one of the first conceptual
arrangements for school districts to use private camps for educa­
tional purposes.* In 1940, with the help of the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, a pilot program involving three Michigan school districts
was initiated at the Foundation-owned Clear Lake Camp, located out­
side Battle Creek, Michigan. This camp, with a well-qualified staff
under the direction of Edwin Pumula, worked with the program participants for two-week periods.2
In 1940 and 1941 the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, through the
guidance of Hugh B. Masters and in cooperation with the American
1

2

Camping Association, conducted four school camping workshops with
the express purpose of promoting and improving public school camping.
From the proceedings of these leadership sessions came these resident
school camping principles:
1. The principle purpose of camping is education.
2. American children have the same right to camping
as to education in the schools.
3. Publicly sponsored camping does not mean that
"Government must do the whole job or interfere with
private enterprise any more than public schools
interfere with private or parochial schools.
Rather it is a challenge to adapt ... to the
needs of very large numbers of children."3
Over the next decades many of the personnel from the Clear
Lake staff and others involved with the Foundation workshops, or
those following it, would move to other states to initiate residential
camping operations. Pumula went to San Diego, California; Ken Pike
to Long Beach, California; Leslie Clarke to Boston, Massachusetts;
Don Hammerman to DeKalb, Illinois; and George Donaldson to Tyler,
Texas. All were charged with the responsibility to initiate and
operate residential school camping programs. It was from these
beginnings that camping across the United States experienced a
steadily increasing amount of support in the 1950s. 1960s, and early
1970s. This surge of interest appears to have tapered off in the
middle and latter part of the 1970s, possibly even decreasing.
With the piloting of residential school camping by the three
Michigan school districts in the early 1940s, Michigan gained the
reputation of being the birthplace of the movement. Growth within

3

the State of Michigan was greatly assisted by cooperation of two
state agencies, the Michigan Department of Public Instruction
(presently the Department of Education) and the Michigan Department
of Conservation (presently the Department of Natural Resources).
The Department of Public Instruction provided educational leadership
for teacher in-service and program planning in 1945 when it
"established an experimental project in Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, and Outdoor Education in the Division of Instruction."4
In the same year, the Michigan Legislature passed an Act "which
enables school districts to acquire camps and operate them as part
of the regular educational and recreational program of the schools."5
In the 1949 Michigan State Aid Education Bill, incentive
financial aid was provided to school districts for the development
of resident camping programs.^ In September of 1949, the Michigan
Departments of Conservation and Public Instruction joined forces
with the W. K. Kellogg Foundation to sponsor a national leadership
conference on Community School Camping. Government, education and
conservation leaders were assembled to learn about this budding
educational movement viewed as a new social invention in education.^
In these formative years, the Michigan Department of Con­
servation promoted the use of a network of camps, which it owned and
maintained, for residential school camping. These fifteen (15)
Outdoor Centers, built by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the
1930s, became the primary camping facilities used by the school
districts of Michigan. Visionary efforts of men like Eugene B.
Elliott, Hugh B. Masters, Lee Thurston, Julian W. Smith, George W.

4

Donaldson and P. J. Hoffmaster encouraged more than one hundred
Michigan school districts to develop camping programs in the 1940s,
1950s, and 1960s.
Need for Study
The Michigan residential school camping movement accelerated
in the 1950s and 1960s until by the early 1970s there were hundreds
of camp programs in operation. However, at that time the growth
rate stopped and a decline in the number of residential programs
began. According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources—Parks
Division figures, the decline in use of their Outdoor Centers had
been calculated to be 23 percent over the span of six years, 1974-79
(Appendix I). Historically, these Centers had been the primary
facilities used by Michigan school camping groups. That pattern of
decline was similarly found in the data collected by the Michigan
Department of Education—General Education Services. According to
their data, Michigan's school systems camp programs declined by 24
percent from 1975 to 1979 (Appendix II).
In spite of this decline, many school districts still camp
and have been camping continuously for nearly forty years. Others
are now initiating new programs for the first time, but the trend is
downward.
This study was needed to collect information on certain
Michigan residential school camping programs which operated within
the years of 1974 to 1979. Specifically needed was an exploration
of the reasons for the apparent decline in the number of school camp
programs during that time span.

5

Purpose and Importance of Study
The purposes of this study are: (1) to determine the
reasons for the sharp decline in the use of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Centers by residential school camp­
ing groups; (2) to determine the reasons why certain school districts
continue to operate their camping programs at DNR facilities, while
others ceased to camp, and (3) to discover support mechanisms
needed to maintain Michigan's resident school camp programs.
A school district expends great amounts of resources, both
fiscal and personnel, when initiating a residential school camping
program. In addition to the local district monies, considerable
funds from the State of Michigan are expended for the administration
of the DNR Outdoor Centers, maintaining them and conforming with the
constantly changing camp health and safety regulations. The
Michigan Department of Social Services also has personnel assigned
to the duties of licensing school camp operations.
Overall, these combine for a significant investment of time
and money toward the end of a successful school camping program.
Data collected from this study could serve as a reference to school
districts considering the initiation, termination, or continuation
of their camping programs. If this educationally proven experience
is to be altered or eliminated, school districts should have alterna­
tive avenues available to accomplish similar learning. The conclu­
sions of this study could also give some insights into the long
range future of Michigan's residential school camping programs which

6

appear to be in jeopardy in light of the declining numbers previously
discussed.
Hypotheses
In order to pursue these purposes, two groups of Michigan
school districts were surveyed. One group had been camping con­
tinuously at a Michigan Department of Natural Resources Outdoor
Center from the 1974-75 school year through 1978-79. The other group
studied were districts who had camped at these DNR centers only in
1974-75 and/or 1975-76, but not in the school years 1976-77 through
through 1978-79.
It was the intent of this study to investigate the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis I: Administrative Support
There will be no difference in the administrative
support between th camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
Hypothesis II: Teacher Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of teacher
involvement between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.
Hypothesis III: Community Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of parent/
community involvement between the camp programs who
continuously used DNR Centers and those who ceased
camping after 1975-76.

7

Hypothesis IV: Student Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of
involvement by the students in planning of camp
activities between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.
Hypothesis V: Curriculum
There will be no difference in the degree of
infusion of the camp program into the school
district's curriculum between the camp programs
who continuously used DNR Centers and those who
ceased camping after 1975-76.
Hypothesis VI: Finances
There will be no difference in the availability of
financial resources to cover camp program expenses
between the camp programs who continuously used
DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.
Hypothesis VII: Evaluation
There will be no difference in the camp evaluation
procedures followed by the camp programs who
continuously used DNR Centers and those who ceased
camping after 1975-76.
Assumptions
There were five pertinent assumptions made in this study.
1. The operational process used in camp program development
was assumed to be comparable with all user groups. This study con­
centrates on residential school camps using the DNR Outdoor Centers
which are void of program and without a residential education staff.
This necessitated that each user group generate its own curriculum,
procure the resource staff and counsellors, designate a camp
director, and provide the cook staff.

8

2. The rental cost per participant for the use of the DNR
facilities was the same, regardless of the Center utilized. The
State DNR budget subsidized the operational costs of these facilities,
making the Centers the lower priced accommodations available when
compared with private camp facilities.
3. Travel times to and from camp were comparable for all
school user groups. The DNR Outdoor Centers were within sixty miles
of major metropolitan areas, with the exception of Ocqueoc Lake and
Sleeper, two of the lesser used facilities.
4. The resident school camp curriculums at all Outdoor
Centers were comparable within the limitations of the camp facilities.
The Outdoor Centers were very comparable in size, accommodations,
types of buildings, and natural geographical features. Each had a
lake and a stream, woods and fields, and was part of a larger Stateowned recreation area.
5. It was assumed that the person responding to the survey
used in this study would promptly answer all questions to the best
of his/her ability.
Limitations
This study had three major limitations.
1. This study was restricted to the users of Michigan DNR
facilities over a specified time period. Using a mailed question­
naire, the 32 school districts who had continuously camped at these
Centers from 1974-75 through 1978-78 were surveyed. Likewise, there
were 36 school districts polled who camped in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76

9

only. In both cases this was the entire number of districts meeting
these criteria.
2. The data collected by the questionnaire were the educated
opinions of the person who was designated as the 'responsible' person
on the DNR facility reservation form. There were no other parties
contacted from the 68 school districts surveyed, who might have had
differing opinions.
3. The information gathered by the questionnaire revolved
around the seven hypotheses, which excluded many other facets of the
school camp operation, including staff selection, health and safety,
legal problems, business management, and transportation.
Definition of Terms
In order to better understand this study, certain operational
definitions are clarified.
Residential school camping is that program whereby students
spend one or more days and nights at a camp facility as a portion of
their regular Monday through Friday school year curriculum. In this
room and board living environment, educational experiences concen­
trating on the out-of-doors are offered to all participants.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Centers are the
camp facilities owned and maintained by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. These centers have the typical camp sleeping
lodges, kitchen and dining lodge, infirmary, and buildings for small
group activities.

10

Urban communities are Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Benton Harbor/
St. Joseph, Bay City, Detroit and immediate suburbs, Flint, Grand
Rapids, Jackson, Lansing, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Pontiac, Port Huron,
and Saginaw.
Suburban communities are those immediately surrounding the
urban communities.
Rural communities are all those not designated as urban or
suburban
Teaching (camp) staff persons include the classroom teacher
who goes to camp with the classroom of students and may include other
resource personnel.
Elementary, Middle/Jr. High/Intermediate, and High School
levels are used as categorized and printed in the 1980 Michigan
Education Directory.
Overview of Study
Chapter II contains a review of pertinent literature and
research, particularly as it relates to the administrative organiza­
tion in the development of resident camp programs. This review will
begin with the history of camping and school camping, followed by
concentration on studies covering program development. Also con­
sidered will be the role of administrators, teachers, students,
community, facilities, and evaluation in the process of camp program
development.
The design of the study will be the subject of Chapter III.
The sample population selected and the controls placed on this study

11

will be addressed, as will the design and validation of the survey
instrument. The analysis procedure used on the data will be the
final topic discussed in this chapter.
Chapter IV will address the analysis of the data collected,
the results of the analysis, and a discussion of the results in
relation to the studies previously reviewed in Chapter II. The
hypotheses developed for this study will be tested and reviewed
with an emphasis on significant differences between the continuously
camping sub-population from 1974 to 1979 and those who had not camped
after 1976.
Chapter V will discuss the conclusions based on this
research. From these conclusions, a series of support mechanisms,
meant to serve as a strategy for the successful implementation and/
or continuation of school camping, will be proposed. Recommendations
for further study and reflections by the writer will conclude this
thesis.

CHAPTER I: FOOTNOTES
^Julian W. Smith, "Where We Have Been - What We Are - What
We Will Become," Journal of Outdoor Education 5 (Fall, 1970): 3.
2

Julian W. Smith, Reynold E. Carlson, George W. Donaldson,
Hugh B. Masters, Outdoor Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 98.
3
Charles W. Elliot, "The Role of Camping in Social Life in a
Changing World," The Role of Camping in America, special issue of
Camping Magazine 14 (February, 1942): 20-21.
^Outdoor Education in Michigan Schools (Lansing: Michigan
Department of Education, 1970), p. 2.
5Smith et al., Outdoor Education, p. 101.
6Ibid.,

p. 102.

^John W. Gilliland, School Camping, A Frontier of Curriculum
Improvement (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1954), p. 26.

12

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
"Research . . . has not been abundant in the area of outdoor
education,"* This statement, made by Rillo in 1967, has been echoed
by many others in more recent times. Within the general area of out­
door education, research on the topic of residential school camping
has been even more restricted.
With the relative newness of the field of resident school
camping there has not been an abundance of publications. The majority
of those available have been authored by the founding fathers of the
movement. In many cases it appears they (the authors) were too busy
spreading the word to write the word. The journal literature, beyond
the initial thrust in the late 1940s and 1950s has been concentrated
in two professional journals, The Communicator (Journal of the New
York State Outdoor Education Association) and the Journal of Outdoor
Education (published by Northern Illinois University), for eleven and
fourteen years, respectively. Camping has been the topic of doctoral
dissertations dating from 1930 with the work of Bernard S. Mason. In
the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s the increase of residential school camping
brought forth a corresponding increase in doctoral dissertations.
This review of literature utilizes all sources, but concentrates on
13

14

the doctoral dissertations because of their pertinence to the topic
studied.
The literature review covers the general history of camping,
the specific historical background of residential school camping, and
a review of program development. An examination of the administrator,
teacher, student, and community role in a camp operation was completed.
Camp facilities and sites are additional areas of review. Finally,
the literature review examines the role of evaluation in resident
school camping programs.
History of Camping
The studies of Ulanoff2 indicate that organized camping in
the United States was born out of the reaction to the Civil War. The
turmoil created by this conflict prompted people to return to the
simpler ways of life by returning to nature. This perspective would
become a sustained movement that reflected the closing of the late
1800s frontiers and the urbanization beginnings of the early 1900s.
Gunn is credited with establishing one of the first resident
camps in 1861, the Gunnery School for Boys in the Washington, D.C.
area. In that two-week camp, Gunn and his wife worked with boys on
recreational skills like sailing, hiking, fishing and boating.3
Summer camping was launched from these beginnings. With the turn of
the century came an awakening to the social philosophy of pro­
gressivism.
The societal change resulted in alterations to the summer
camp movement. It now became important that activities had

15

educational value in addition to the previously accepted recreational
benefits. This growth in the movement and change in the philosophy
is reflected in Reimann's statement from the book, The Successful
Camp:
The summer camp movement has grown significantly in the brief
period since its inception. Growth has been reflected in the
dramatic expansion of the number of children in camps,
extended periods that children camp, in the provocative
variety of programs developed, in the range of specialized
features, and in the provision of opportunity for campers
of all ages.4
This awareness of the out-of-door educational value was the result of
five societal influences, according to Smith, Carlson, Donaldson and
Masters, in their book, Outdoor Education. The five most important
factors they described were:
1. Urbanization. The advent of the industrial revolu­
tion found a change from a rural agricultural
society to an urban, industrialized life style.
2. Frenzied tempo of life. Keeping up with the quick
growth of urbanization was the fast paced life
style of a mechanized society.
3. Automation and mechanization. Lost to the auto­
matic machine age was the need to labor long and
hard on the farm, resulting in previously unknown
leisure time.
4. Sedentary living. When the need for work related
physical exertion began to diminish, so also did
the physically fit individual.
5. Abstractions. The mechanical automatic society
did not have the same tangible experiences as
found in the agricultural society. Abstractions
replaced experiences.

16

History of Resident School Camping
Societal changes prompted residential camping pioneers like
L. B. Sharp to weave the educational values of summer camping into
the total educational process. Sharp later professed, "That which
can be best learned in the out-of-doors through direct experience,
dealing with native materials and life situations, should there be
learned.
This deep personal belief in the out-of-doors led Sharp^ to
formally study and research the administrative aspects of blending
education and the sutmier camp. He concentrated his studies on the
administration, evaluation, finances, facilities, equipment mainten­
ance , and duration of the camp experience. These factors have since
been the focus of additional studies over the past fifty years.
Summer camping appears to have been the product of a number
of societal conditions, as has been resident school camping. Studies
O

by D. Hammerman indicate that a combination of socio-economic factors
gave rise to this movement. Urbanization and the post-depression era
economic surge that carried through World War II brought a change in
emphasis in the field of public education. During these times
curricula were broadened with a wide range of new concepts, among
them residential school camping. The Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) projects greatly aided this movement by providing simple but
sound physical facilities where many camp programs were conducted.
Dimock and Hendry had predicted this trend earlier in writing,
The next decade will doubtless see schools extending their
program through the summer to include the camping experience.
Educators will increasingly become more aware of the place
of the camp in a complete year-long scheme of education.9

17

Program Development
During the next two decades many schools initiated residential
school camp programs. This brought about the desire for more data on
the development and maintenance of these programs. J. D. Marcel1 us'^
studies in 1952 were concerned with the lack of substantive data on
the camping programs in New York State. While not isolating any
major causes for the absence of data, he did find that administrations
wanted to expand their camping programs, which incidentally they had
initially created. Further findings showd that non-camping school
districts generally misunderstood the philosophy of camping because
they felt it was recreational in scope. These districts also lacked
parental interest, necessary financial resources, and available and
accessible sites. Marcellus concluded that in order to continue the
camping movement in New York State, teacher in-service training,
financial aid for new programs, and the creation of new camping
facilities would be needed.
Schafer's thesis concentrated on administrative concerns for
initiating a camping program. Based on the premise that well planned
resident camping experiences built upon solid educational goals and
standards would have an impact upon students, Schafer gathered
information from 172 resident programs from throughout the United
States. His studies concluded:**
1. Most programs were in states which provided
substantial support from the legislature,
universities and school districts.
2. Administrative and teacher support must be given
at the initial planning stages. An in-service
component should be a part of this pre-program.

18

3. Camping programs should be integrated into the
total school operation.
4. Camp staff should have teaching skills, content
knowledge, and previous camping experience. Paid
specialists might be needed.
5. Joint operation with other districts would be
mutually beneficial from the standpoint of
facility use, program development, and cost.
6. Evaluation of the program is necessary but it
should reflect objectivity which allows for a
flexible program.
In a study of administrative factors at 40 school systems'
camps, Gilliland 12 identified nine major areas of camp organization:
(1) developing interest, (2) program planning, (3) staff selection,
(4) health and safety, (5) interpreting camp to the community,
(6) financing camp, (7) leadership development, (8) business manage­
ment, and (9) legal problems. Philpott's,*^ Archard's,*^ and
Ambry's15 studies led to the identification of these same general
categories in similar research on wide cross sections of school camp­
ing programs.
When Craddock

1 fi

surveyed residential school camps from a

multi-state area for guidelines to establish a county-wide program,
data revealed that cooperative program planning was one of three
'essentials.' The in-service training of staff and program emphasis
upon learning, which could not be obtained elsewhere, were the other
two 'essentials.'
In 1967 Turner*^ polled superintendents throughout the United
States in an attempt to establish significant administrative pro­
cedures in the operation of resident outdoor laboratory school camps.

19

Among his conclusions was the finding that the school size was not a
significant consideration in the operation of a camp program. When
schools did camp, it would typically be at the fifth and sixth grade
levels, during the spring and fall seasons, utilizing facilities
which were rented or leased, as compared to a school district-owned
site. As in the studies in Gilliland, Philpott, Archard, Ambry,
18

Craddock, and Rillo,

among the most prevalent and consistent prob­

lem areas were staffing and the financial support for the camping
program.
McKnight19 undertook a study of the contributions and poten­
tialities of school camping in 1952. Once again the quality of
leadership and program came forth as major factors. In the final
analysis, she concluded the primary goal of any school camping project
was the production of desirable change in the individual. The facili­
ties, activities, and acquisition of knowledge and skills were
important only as a means by which these changes could be produced.
Rex Miller echoed these beliefs when he stated:
The resident outdoor experience can provide an extended,
intensive, yet relaxed and contemplative experience for
both young and old. The development of much sought after
but seldom accomplished skills and attitudes, such as selfreliance, initiative, independence,, respect, cooperation,
problem solving, and conservation can be taught and
developed through the all-inclusive, 24 hour-a-day, total
living-learning experience in a resident outdoor program.20
In 1955 Walton21 studied the administrative practices used in
the operation of 30 part-time Michigan school camps. This study con­
centrated upon four general areas: facilities, personnel, program,
and school camp-community relations. The major findings of this

20

study dealt with certain topics which seemed insignificant compared
with the stated purpose. Conclusions on road maintenance, infirma­
ries, fire fighting equipment, and recreational facilities for staff,
camp duties for teachers and visiting parents, or types of camp fund
raising ventures did not appear to give much administrative direction
to one initiating a resident school camp program. However, in the
recommendations for further study, Walton suggested further study in
the areas of administrative, staff, student and community involvement
plus the need for more objective evaluative procedures.
Role of Administrator
While it was most difficult to rank in degree the importance
of roles played by administrators, staff, students, and community,
the area of administration seemed to be the nucleus around which pro­
grams were built. Denver Fox, one of the pioneer leaders of the San
Diego city-county resident school camping program, stated:
If it is decided by the key people that this (camping) is
something the community or the district needs and is willing
to pay for, the first thing they had better do is get good
leadership, right from the beginning, so that the planning
is sound. They should bring in someone who has vision,
experience in outdoor living, an idea of the educational
potential of such activity. Someone who can guide the
development and begin to recommend people to form a
nucleus of a staff.22
Intensive studies by Pepper 23 of eleven school camping programs sup­
port the position by Fox. In these studies he concluded that the
administrator was of basic importance in developing and maintaining
an effective and efficient program. He further contended that the
administrator was the person expected to provide leadership in

21

developing camping program interest. In order to accomplish this,
the administrator must assist in maintaining a close relationship
between the school curriculum and the camp program.
When Frey24 undertook a job analysis of school camp directors,
he had similar findings. This research centered around the prioriti­
zation of 317 identified duties of camp directors. Ranked in the
highest order were the responsibility that a camp administrator had
to:
1. interpret the program to teachers,
2. orient new staff (teachers), and
3. assist teachers in the development of skills and in
the use of instructional materials.
The major importance of the administrator's role in staff development
was similarly identified in the studies of Rillo.25 As Willson con­
cluded after studies on leader behavior and change strategies, "The
expectations of the leader can significantly affect the growth of the
participants."26 In 1950 Mouser27 studied the opportunities for
leadership training in outdoor education. After researching the
programs of 100 youth camps and 21 educational training centers, he
concluded that more workshops were needed in order to improve the
leadership which was so critical to outdoor education. These work­
shops would be for administrators, teachers, and university staffs
alike. When Rupff28 made a comparison of the aspirations with the
achievements in a group of Michigan school camp programs, he similarly
illustrated the need for joint leadership training. Among his conclu­
sions were that superintendents and teachers differed sharply with

22

each other on their aspirations and perceptions of achievements in
the resident camping program.
Role of Teacher
Huck and Decker state:
The best place for training youth is within the existing
educational system, with professional teachers in an
academic atmosphere. A good teacher who is a dedicated
outdoor person can convey his or her feelings about out­
door behavior most effectively. Such teachers' concerns
and enthusiasm for responsible outdoor citizenship can
result in adoption of lifelong behavior patterns by the
students.29
The importance of the teacher in a residential camping opera­
tion has been the subject of many inquiries over the past 40 years.
While the specifics of these studies have varied, there has been a
consensus on the need for teachers to be involved in the planning of
the camp program and educationally prepared to work in an out-of-doors
environment. As Willson concluded, "Individuals are more likely to
enter wholeheartedly into any project if they have meaningful participation in the selection and planning of the project."30
In one of the earlier studies which concentrated on teacher
training, MacMillan31 surveyed the duties and responsibilities of
resident school camp staffs. This study concluded that specialized
training was needed in camp counselling, science, arts and crafts,
and music. She recommended that training be received primarily
through teacher training institutions for certified teachers.
Emphasis was placed on the necessity to have certified teachers on
the camp staff.

23

When Wenrich 32 questioned 141 administrators and leaders of
existing school camp programs, they came up with similar recommenda­
tions. It was from these studies that she concluded:
1. Successful classroom teachers are not necessarily
successful camp teachers.
2. Teachers agree they need camping experiences prior
to going to camp, for the primary reasons of building
confidence and security.
3. There is a need for sympathetic guidance to prepare
the un-convinced and un-informed teacher for partici­
pation in a camping program.
In 1961 Cyphers33 queried elementary teachers to determine
which of 102 outdoor experiences they felt were significant. The
major conclusion drawn from this study was that the majority of
teachers did not receive adequate professional training on the use
of outdoor resources although over half had previous outdoor experi­
ences.
Holt34 questioned 102 administrators and 840 teachers to
determine the competencies needed by the classroom teacher for resi­
dent outdoor education programs. The respondents felt that teachers
did not have the necessary skills to successfully participate in
residential programs. They indicated the need for pre-service and
in-service programs before any attempts were made to camp.
This need for pre-service training was a major conclusion in
the findings of Hug35 in 1964. When interviewing elementary teachers
he also learned that those involved in outdoor activities were younger,
less experience in education, had more children and had more recently
attended a university outdoor related course than teachers who did not
use the out-of-doors in their teaching.

24

As these studies suggest, a trained, concerned, and enthusi­
astic teacher appears to be a most important component in an educa­
tionally effective residential school camping program. McEvoy
stated:
As teachers in the widest sense of the word, we can only be
satisfied with our efforts when we have reached a state of
mind which makes us content that our future is in the hands
of our pupils. We have a lot to do but I believe that not
only is there hope, but that outdoor education (resident
camping) has a major contribution to make towards effecting
that state of mind.36
Role of Student
Where possible, students should feel a part of the planning
and implementation of the total unit. They will buy in more
genuinely if they feel a part of the organizing effort.
This will have a positive carry-over effect in the classroom
and during the experience segment. Involving students is
time consuming initially but pays large dividends later.37
So stated Kielsmeier when looking at the factor of involvement in determining success in a program. Mason,38 in one of the
earliest works on camping (1930), found that the needs and wishes of
campers are critical factors in successful programs. After inter­
viewing participants in 91 private camps, he concluded the children
needed to be involved in the planning of the program and would do so
willingly if the activities were geared toward their interests.
Clarke39 expressed the idea in his book, Public School Camp­
ing, that the greater the child's role in selecting his activities,
the more he would use his plentiful environment, resulting in more
meaningful and lasting experiences. Clarke also professed that the
most important experience a camper gained was that of living together,
the socialization experiences found in a group camping situation.

25

Kelley referred to this socialization of the camper when he
said:
Children then will have an opportunity to live together
twenty-four hours a day. They can learn, some for the
first time, what cooperative living can mean. They have
a chance to learn to divide the work, food serving, dish
washing, table clearing, keeping the inside and outside
of the camp clean and attractive. They can have councils
to discuss the rules, establish ways of living together.
They can even help plan the programs of work, and have
some choice in what they will do. It may be the first
time in their lives that they have a chance to participate
in the making of a decision.40
Swift summarized the combination of social and educational
needs of the student in the 1964 National Audubon Society publication
Outdoor Conservation Education, stating:
Our young people are more in need of sunburn and callouses
and a healthy appetite than they are of psychiatrics and
more play. With 51% of our young manhood as military
rejects we had better take dead aim at some of the serious
defects of our affluent times. They can't all be scientists
nor do they want to be; and some earthy experience for bud­
ding scientists is certainly not a waste of time.41
Role of Community
Swift's comments suggest that our society has a vested
interest in making certain that today's youth have a series of out-of
doors experiences. Pumula brought this into a more definitive focus
when he addressed the role of the local community.
How important it is to have a community concept, that outdoor
education is more than school, more than recreation; it is
the life of the community. This is why San Diego wanted a
community camp.42
In his studies on the development of outdoor laboratories,
Hibbs'43 primary conclusion was that in the developmental stage,
community input was essential. He suggested a committee structure

26

which called for non-school members who could offer unique expertise
to the committee's purpose. Through this format, a community-oriented
outdoor laboratory could be developed.
Sato's44 findings were similar in nature. He concluded that
in the planning of the specific program for a metropolitan school
system, cooperative effort of several segments of the school community
was necessary. The program should be piloted under the watchful eye
of an advisory board who would assist with developing specific camp
policies. This study further noted that it was the responsibility of
the Board of Education to provide the camp site and staff.
Jones and Swan45 looked at the community role from a different
perspective. They conducted a comparison of two types of resident
camp programs, using the responses from 566 opinionaires completed
by parents of student campers. They concluded:
1. parents had positive attitudes about the value and
outcome of the camp experience,
2. programs should be continued, and
3. parents should cover costs of the room and board
of the students with the school district covering
similar costs for teachers plus the expenses for
instructional materials.
Facilities
The facilities utilized in conducting residential camping
programs have greatly varied according to the availability of selec­
tion, geographical location and size of the participating group.
Hammerman and Hammerman suggest:

27

The natural area around the site should be large enough to
handle the number of students utilizing the facility and
should contain sufficient variety to offer a range of study
activities broad enough to accomplish the desired educational
goals and objectives.46
In a survey of persons who had demonstrated leadership in outdoor education, Nelson47 found six criteria ranked as 'quite desirable'
for outdoor sites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

clean, unpolluted water
population of medium and small native animals
swampy area, log, marsh, swamp, slough
stream
meadow area
sufficiently close to primary school area to permit
easy single day trips.47

Whereas Nelson concentrated upon the outdoor features of the
site, Sim48 conducted a study of practitioners throughout the United
States to find the factors deemed necessary for resident outdoor
centers. This study concluded that a camp should have:
1. diversity of outdoor environments
2. buildings should be rustic in nature but accessible
for the handicapped
3. dining facilities should have multi-use capabilities
4. adequate lodging accommodations
5. indoor and outdoor learning stations
6. safety of all participants as a priority, with
emergency procedures known and facilities available.
The study by Hulett49 of school camping facilities concurred
with the findings of both Nelson and Sim although it was restricted
in scope to the camping programs of one state, Illinois.
Evaluation
Camps "are now recognized as great laboratories where life
situations are studied, field work and research carried on, and
serious projects undertaken,"50 according to Hammerman and Hammerman.

28

There seemed to be a discrepancy between this potential and
the actual research projects carried out on school camp programs.
Rillo was critical of the general field of outdoor education and
school camping specifically as stated in the opening comments of
this chapter. Rillo,51 in support of new efforts for research, went
on to say that the role of research in outdoor education was to bring
substantiation and meaning to theory and to improve the pragmatic
application of this theory through experimentation.
Studies by Parkman52 on the conversion of a camp into an
outdoor education center and by Sato53 on the organization of an out­
door education program both emphasize the importance of a continuous
program of evaluation. Both studies, conducted 13 years apart (1975
and 1962, respectively), maintained that such program evaluation
must take place in order to insure an effective camp operation.
Overall, evaluation seemed to be widely espoused but little imple­
mented.
This apparent absence of concern for the need of evaluation
so as to improve the end product--students—was exemplified by Shoman
who said:
Man, for the first time, has the knowledge and power to
move mountains, alter oceans, change the weather, and
greatly disturb life on earth. The question must be
raised: has man also the wisdom and morality to shape
his world in keeping with nature and her laws? If not,
how long, and how happily, can he hope to live or even
survive?54
More quality research on the effectiveness of school camping can
begin to help answer these questions.

29

Summary and Critique
In 1956 Smith wrote, "School camping is one of the most
promising and extensive programs of outdoor education because it com­
bines camp living with a great variety of invaluable outside
activities."55 Smith's statement foretold of a bright future for
school camping, which did indeed happen in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s,
and early 1970s. But, it is the apparent decline in interest in the
later 1970s that prompted this study. The intent of this literature
review was to take an historical review on the progress of residential
camping over the past 40 years. We are living in a vastly different
society than the one found in 1930, with different human resources,
needs, and educational expectations. It is the premise of this
dissertation that these changing conditions have had an effect upon
residential camping.
Based upon this premise a review of related literature was con­
ducted. The review was not restricted to one or two major studies.
Instead, the concentration was upon component portions from numerous
research projects and papers which appear to have a direct relation­
ship to the problem being addressed by the researcher. There appeared
to be certain voids in the research reviewed. The 1952 study by
Marcel 1 us56 on New York State programs failed to provide any substan­
tive data after expressing the need for the same in the purpose of the
study. Marcellus did not pursue the area of administrative support
nor reasons why school districts were no longer camping. His recom­
mendations for staff in-service training were not fully substantiated.

30

His conclusion that state aid was needed for program development has
been refuted by other studies.
The Schafer57 study conducted in 1965 gave a good nationwide
overview of camping programs. In addition to being very broad in
scope, it omitted any major reference to the involvement of the stu­
dent or community in program development. In one of his conclusions
Schafer made the suggestions that additional monies for the staffing
of specialists and additional pay for teachers and administrators
would make for a better program. This researcher would initially
take exception and agree with Thabet when he wrote:
With the economic pinch found in our schools today, educators
must be educated in the value and utility of outdoor educa­
tion ... it must be learned and experienced. In doing so,
teachers will find a valuable teaching tool that will provide
in-depth learning experiences that are inexpensive, exciting,
and acceptable to students, administrators, and the public
at large.58
Walton's59 1955 study of 30 part-time Michigan school camps
covered four general areas which will also be researched in the
present study: personnel, program, school-community involvement,
and facilities. Some of the areas he studied have been altered by
time. For example, the DNR Outdoor Centers he researched are now
structurally upgraded so as to make many of his facility questions
unnecessary. Similarly, due to changes in school camp programs over
the past 25 years, certain health and safety inquiries of that study
are of little functional use today. Walton's research lacked data on
the administrative functions in a camp operation. Other factors
studied, such as road maintenance at camp, available fire fighting
equipment, infirmaries, and the duties of non-school staff were

31

determined of less importance by the present study. In his conclu­
sions, Walton suggested further study regarding staff, student, and
community involvement, and evaluation procedures. Those suggestions
were of assistance in the design of this study.
In the 1955 study on staffing of elementary school camps
fin
Wenrich questioned the relationship between successful camp teachers
and successful classroom teachers, particularly as related to experi­
ences at camp. She concluded that pre-service and in-service were
vital to a successful camp operation. The date of this study and
the changes over the past 25 years in teacher education institutions
makes this an interesting component for an updated study. Would
Wenrich's conclusions on experience hold true today?
The 1930 study by Mason^ placed major emphasis on the role
of the student in the success of the camping program. This component
was not found in most of the reviewed research. Have students
changed over the past 51 years or have they just been over-looked
when camping programs have been developed?
The 1957 study by Hibbs^ and the 1962 research by Sato*^
both addressed the need for strong community involvement in program
development. Is this a vital factor overlooked by those programs
who have failed to provide a continuing resident camping operation?
A review of the literature and studies on facilities were of
interest primarily in terms of background. The Michigan Department
of Natural Resources Outdoor Centers, on which the present study will
concentrate, are very similar in nature, thus eliminating the need
for further in-depth investigation.

32

Many of the readings and research studies extolled the
virtues of an operational evaluative process. Some even found this
to be of major importance. However, very few studies covered evalua­
tion as a program component. There was very little evidence that the
programs or topics studied had viable evaluative processes in opera­
tion.
It is from this review of literature and research that the
general areas of concentration for the present study have been formu­
lated. It seems apparent that there is still additional information
needed on the roles played by administrators, teachers, students,
and community in the development and their relationship to the con­
tinuation of the resident school camping program. Likewise, the
experience base of the camping participants, the financial implica­
tions of the resident camp and the evaluation procedures utilized
are further factors which can be researched. In Chapter III, the
importance of these factors will be discussed in greater detail.
The design of the study will also be covered in that chapter. The
sample population selected and the controls placed on this study will
be addressed, as will the design and validation of the survey
instrument. The procedure for analysis of the data will be the
final topic discussed in Chapter III.

CHAPTER II: FOOTNOTES
Thomas J. Rillo, "Summary of Current Trends and Research in
School Camping and Outdoor Education," a paper presented at the
Midwest AAHPER Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967, mimeographed, p. 7.
2

Stanley M. Ulanoff, "The Origin and Development of Organized
Camping in the United States 1861-1961" (Ph.D. dissertation, New York
University, 1968).
3Viola A. Mitchell and Ida Crawford, Camp Counseling
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1961), p. 19.
\ewis C. Reimann, The Successful Camp (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1958), p. v.
5Smith, et al., pp. 4-9.
^Lloyd B. Sharp, The Bulletin, National Association of
Secondary School Principals 41 (May 1957): introduction.
\loyd B. Sharp, "Education and the Summer Camp--An Experi­
ment" (Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York, 1930).
O

Donald R. Hammerman, "A Historical Analysis of SocioCultural Factors that Influenced the Development of Camping Educa­
tion" (Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1961).
g
Hedley S. Dimock and Charles E. Hendry, Camping and
Character (New York: Association Press, 1929), p. 335.
*®J. D. Marcel 1 us, "A Study of Existing Public School
Sponsored Camping Programs in New York State and an Analysis of
Factors which Might Encourage the Development of Additional Camping
Programs in the Public Elementary Schools of New York" (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1952).
**Frank G. Schafer, "An Administrative Guide for Initiating
Resident Outdoor Education in the Public Schools" (Ed.D. dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia, 1965).
12

John W. Gilliland, "Study of Administrative Factors in
Establishing a Program of School Camping" (Ed.D. dissertation, New
York University, 1949).
33

34
13

Frank E. Phil pott, "School Camping in Florida: A Guide
for Local School Administrators in Planning, Establishment and
Administration of School Camping Programs" (Ed.D. dissertation, New
York University, 1958).
14Merrill H. Archard, "Recommendations for the Administration
of the New Paltz State Teachers College School Camp" (Ed.D. disserta­
tion, New York University, 1956).
15Edward J. Ambry, "An Investigation of the Administrative
Problems Related to Resident Outdoor Education Programs in Certain
Public Elementary and Secondary Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University, 1964).
^Arnold Craddock, "A Suggested School Camping Program for
Kanawha County Sixth Grade" (Ed.D. dissertation, George Peabody
College for Teachers, 1955).
^Walton G. Turner, "An Analysis to Determine Significant
Administrative Procedures Used in the Establishment and Operation of
Selected Resident Outdoor Laboratory School Programs" (Ed.D.
dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967).
18

Thomas J. Rillo, "A Preliminary Definition of the Role of
the Outdoor Education Coordinator in Representative Public School
Outdoor Education Programs" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, 1964).
19Eloise McKnight, "Contributions and Potentialities of
School Camping" (Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia,
1952).
20

Rex A. Miller, "The Development of a Positive Self-image
Through Resident Camping Experience" The Communicator, Journal of
the New York State Outdoor Education Association 9 (Fall-winter,
1977): 49.
21

Thomas W. Walton, "A Study of the Administrative Practices
Used in the Operation of Thirty Selected Part-Time School Camp
Programs" (Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1955).
22

Denver Fox, cited by Wilbur Schramm, Classroom Out-of-Doors
(Kalamazoo, Mich.: Sequoia Press/Publishers, 1969), p. 190.
23Nathan H. Pepper, "A Study of School Camping with Special
Emphasis on Program Objectives, Curriculum, Administration and
Evaluation" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1952).
24Robert H. Frey, "A Job Analysis of School Camp Directors"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1961).

35

25

Rillo, "Role of Coordinator in Outdoor Education Programs."

26

Thomas Will son, "Leader Verbal Behavior: Research and
Strategies for Change," Research Camping and Environmental Education
(Pennsylvania State University: HPER Series #11, 1976), p. 324.
27Gilbert W. Mouser, "A Study of Opportunities for Leader­
ship Training in Outdoor Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, 1950).
28

Paul E. Rupff, "A Comparison of Aspirations with Achieve­
ments in a Group of Selected Michigan School Camps" (Ed.D. disserta­
tion, Michigan State University, 1957).
29Albert R. Huck and Eugene Decker, Environmental Respect,
Safari Clubs International Conservation Fund, Inc. (Fort Collins,
Colo.: Pioneer Impressions, 1976), p. ix.
30Will son, Research Camping and Environmental Education,
p. 324.
31Dorothy Lou MacMillian, "A Survey of the Duties and
Responsibilities of Professional School Camp Directors and Counsellors
in a Selected Group of California Camps" (Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon, 1957).
32Esther Wenrich, "The Staffing of Public Elementary School
Camps" (Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia, 1955)
33Vincent Cyphers, "A Study to Determine the Significant
Outdoor Experiences for Elementary Teachers" (Ed.D. dissertation,
Colorado State College, 1961).
34Lillabelle Holt, "Identification of the Competencies
Needed by Classroom Teachers in Programs of Resident Outdoor Educa­
tion" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University, 1973).
35John W. Hug, "Analysis of the Factors Which Influence
Elementary Teachers in the Utilization of Outdoor Instructional
Activities" (D.Re. dissertation, Indiana University, 1964).
qc

M. McEvoy, "Outdoor Education and Residential Experience"
Journal of Outdoor Education 9 (Fall 1974): 17.
37Jim Kielsmeier, "Experience as an Interdisciplinary Focus
in Alternative Programs," Journal of Outdoor Education 10 (1975): 12.
38Bernard Mason, Camping and Education (New York: McCall
Co., 1930).

36
39

James M. Clarke, Public School Camping (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1951).
40Earl C. Kelley, cited by George W. Donaldson and Oswald
Goering, Perspectives in Outdoor Education (DuBuque, Iowa: Wm. C.
Brown, Co., Publishers, 1972), p. 4.
41Ernest Swift, Outdoor Conservation Education (New York:
National Audubon Society, 1964), p. 14.
42Edwin E. Pumula, Education in and for the Outdoors
(Washington, D.C.: American Association for Health, Physical
Education and Recreation, National Education Association, 1963),
p. 35.
43Clyde Hibbs, "An Analysis of the Development and Use of
Outdoor Laboratories in Teaching Conservation in Public Schools"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1957).
44Edward H. Sato, "A Guide for the Organization and Adminis­
tration of an Outdoor Education Program in a Camp Setting for a
Metropolitan Public School System" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1962).
45Orville E. Jones and Malcolm D. Swan, "Parents Perceptions
of Resident Outdoor Education, Rockford Outdoor School and Taft
Field Campus, 111inois—A Comparison, Spring 1971," Journal of
Outdoor Education 6 (Winter 1972): 17-20
46Donald R. Hammerman and William M. Hammerman, Teaching in
the Outdoors, 2nd ed (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company,
1973), p. 94.
47Neil Nelson, "Investigation of Criteria Involved in
Selection and Development of Outdoor Sites," Journal of Outdoor
Education 8 (Fall 1973): 17-21.
48Andrew L. Sim, "Factors to be Considered in Developing
Resources for Resident Centers for Outdoor/Environmental Education"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1975).
49Florence M. Julett, "A Quantitative and Qualitative Study
of Facilities for School Camping and Outdoor Education on State
Owned Lands in Illinois" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon,
1960).
50Donald R. Hammerman and William M. Hammerman, Outdoor
Education, A Book of Readings (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing
Company, 1968), p. 103.

37
51

Rillo, "Role of Coordinator in Outdoor Education Programs."
52Doris V. Parkman, "Guidelines for the Conversion of an
Existing Resident Camp to an Outdoor Education Center" (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1975).
53
Sato, "Guide for Organization and Administration of Outdoor
Education Program."
Joseph J. Shoman, Outdoor Conservation Education (New York:
National Audubon Society, 1964), p. 85.
55Julian W. Smith, Outdoor Education (Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,
National Education Association, 1956), p. 23.
56Marcellus, "Study of Public School Camping Programs."
57Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education."
58Robert A. Thabet, "Outdoor Education . . . And . . . The
Economic Pinch," The Communicator, Journal of the New York Outdoor
Education Association 8 (Fall-Winter 1976): 51.
59Walton,

"Admistrative Practice in Part-Time Camps."

^Wenrich, "Staffing of Public Elementary School Camps."
^*Mason, Camping and Education.
Hibbs, "Development of Outdoor Laboratories in Public
Schools."
£q
Sato, "Guide for Organization and Administration of
Outdoor Education Programs."

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
This thesis was designed to make a comparative study of
factors and practices in selected Michigan residential school camping
programs. Three criteria were used in selecting this area of study:
1. A review of literature and research indicated that
there have been previous studies in this general
area. Sharp,1 Gilliland,2 and Walton^ had con­
ducted studies on the administrative practices
used in establishing resident camp programs;
2. Fifteen (15) years of experience by the researcher,
in the establishment and operation of resident
school camp programs in Michigan; and
3. Exploratory research into data collected by two
State of Michigan agencies: the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), and Department of Education
(MDE).
The literature review indicated a growing interest in camping,
starting in the 1940s, continued to build until the early 1970s.
However, data collected by these two State agencies indicated a
decline in the resident camp movement starting with 1974-75. Contact
with Michigan Department of Natural Resource Parks Division staff
indicated that use of the Outdoor Centers under their supervision had
declined. According to the monthly reports collected by Kerr Stewart,
Office Manager of the DNR Parks Division, there had been a 23 percent
decline in the residential camp use of the DNR Outdoor Centers over
38

39

the years 1974 to 1979 (Appendix I). Further investigation of data
collected by Joann Broom-McCrum, Michigan Department of Education
Office of Pre-Primary and Family Education, indicated a 24 percent
reduction in schools reporting residential camping programs from
1975 to 1979 (Appendix II).
Controls on the Study and Sample Population
The following characteristics were held constant in order to
assess the impact of the variables in this study.
1. Type of facility used by the camp programs
surveyed
2. Capacity of the facility relating to the size of
participating group
3. Staffing patterns at the resident school camp
4. Distance of the facility (camp) from the user
(school) group
5. Consistency of a specific school's use of a
specific facility over a five year period.
The apparent decline in residential camping in Michigan over a span
of five years led to the focus on the DNR Outdoor Centers, the largest
provider of school camping facilities found in the State. With an
original network of 15 Centers as a source of investigation (Appendix
III), each facility was reviewed for site differences. Geographical
features such as lakes, streams, woods, and fields plus rental costs
and types of buildings were comparable.
The primary differences were in the maximum capacity of each
facility. The review of literature and research indicated that
typical camping groups were two or more classrooms of students. In

40

terms of 30 students per classroom, plus teaching staff and resource
personnel, Centers with a minimum capacity of 85 or more were
selected for the specifics of this study. This eliminated six of
the DNR Outdoor Centers (Appendix IV).
The Michigan DNR Outdoor Centers did not provide any resident
staff assistance for program development, leaving the staffing to the
participant school districts, adding another control to this study.
Using the DNR Outdoor Center Use Reports filed with the DNR
Parks Division, 710 different resident camp programs who used the
remaining nine Outdoor Centers were identified (Appendix V). Informa­
tion was collected on these programs using a data card system
(Appendix VI) designed by the researcher to provide:
1. School name
2. Name and address of permittee
3. Grade level of group, elementary, middle/jr. high,
or high school
4. Distance from school to Outdoor Center, in terms
of 50 mile distance (research review suggested
. that one hour travel time from the school to
the camp was optimum)
5. Urban, rural or suburban school, as defined in
Chapter I
6. Month camped
7. Year camped
8. Outdoor Center used.
When not available on the DNR Use Reports, information on grade level
was obtained from the Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide^
Distances from the particular Outdoor Center to the school was
determined by drawing mileage radius circles of 50 miles on a State
of Michigan Official Transportation Map. Review of these mileage
circles indicated that the user (school groups) fell within the 50
mile radius, adding another control to this study.

41

Designation of the type of community under which each school
district was categorized are listed in the Definitions section of
Chapter I.
When these data components were processed on a computer pro­
gram written by a consultant with the Michigan State University
Office of Research Consultation (ORC), analysis showed 191 different
camping groups used the nine identified Outdoor Centers. These groups
came from 142 different school systems, using one or more Outdoor
Centers, one or more times yearly between the 1974-75 and 1978-79
school years. The restriction to a five year time period was the
final major control of this study.
Since this was a comparative study two groups had to be
selected. One group was determined to be those school districts who
had continuously camped on a yearly basis for five years, 1974-75 to
1978-79. The comparison group was composed of districts who camped
only in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76. Following this criterion, 32
districts who had continuously camped were identified, along with
36 who had camped only in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76. In both cases,
this was the entire number of school districts who met this criterion.
It was assumed that if a district had not camped in DNR Centers from
1976-77 through 1978-79, there was the probability that they no
longer camped or they had changed to another facility.
Instrument Design
When the combined sample population of 68 school districts
had been identified, a method of obtaining pertinent information from

42

each group had to be selected. Since the method to be utilized
would be dependent upon the information desired, the categories to be
researched had to be determined. Research and writings by Hammerman
and Hammerman,5 Smith et al.,6 and Gilliland7 among others indicated
general consensus on ten major categories of resident camp organi­
zation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

staff selection
public relations
program planning
program implementation
health and safety
finance
evaluation
facilities
transportation
food services

For the purposes of this study some of these categories were
combined and others were eliminated. Staff selection, public rela­
tions, program planning and program implementation were combined and
later re-stated in terms of the roles played by administration,
teachers, students and parents/community in the organization of a
resident camp program. Health and safety were eliminated as a cate­
gory of study, not because of the lack of importance but due to the
fact that the DSS and the Michigan Department of Health monitor camp
programs at the DNR Centers.
The uniformity of facilities has been discussed at length
earlier in this chapter. Transportation and food services were
eliminated, primarily because they are not basic to the program
aspects of this study.

43

The seven re-defined areas of this study were evaluation,
program, finance, and the roles played by administration, teachers,
students, and parents/community in the development of a resident
school camping program. In order to secure the data on these cate­
gories, a survey type of questionnaire was used. The questionnaire
was drafted around the seven areas of concentration and appraised for
content validity and instrument language by a panel of experts.
These individuals, selected for their nation-wide expertise in out­
door education and camping were:
1. Dr. Marcia Carlson, Professor of Recreation,
SUNY College at Cortland, New York
2. David Cross, Director, Lansing Environmental Education
Center, Lansing Public Schools, Lansing, Michigan
3. Dr. Vincent Cyphers, Professor of Outdoor Education,
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado
4. Norman Skliar, Administrator, Office of Outdoor and
Environmental Education, BOCES-Nassau, Westbury,
New York
5. Dr. Morris Wiener, Professor, Department of Outdoor
Teacher Education, Lorado Taft Field Campus,
Northern Illinois University, Oregon, Illinois
6. Jack Wycoff, Director of Clear Lake Outdoor Education
Center, Battle Creek Public Schools, Dowling, Michigan
Communication was made with this panel (Appendix VII) to solicit
their input, resulting in the final survey instrument (Appendix
VIII).
The same questionnaire was sent to all of the 68 contact
persons (camp directors) identified on the DNR facility use reserva­
tion forms as the "permittee." The questionnaires were coded to
differentiate between the study populations.

44

Due to perceived difficulties in contacting the camp directors
who camped only in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76, the questionnaire was sent
to all 36 persons, the total number of this study group. Likewise,
all 32 who camped continuously from 1974-75 through 1978-79 received
the same questionnaire. It was the intent of the study to have 20
sets of data from each group. If more than 20 responses were received
a random sampling technique would be used to reduce the number to 20.
Hypotheses
The questions in the survey instrument were developed so as
to test the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis I: Administrative Support (AS)
There will be no difference in the administrative
support between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
Hypothesis II: Teacher Involvement (TI)
There will be no difference in the degree of teacher
involvement between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.
Hypothesis III: Community Involvement (CI)
There will be no difference in the degree of parent/
community involvement between the camp programs who
continuously used DNR Centers and those who ceased
camping after 1975-76.
Hypothesis IV: Student Involvement (SI)
There will be no difference in the degree of
involvement by the students in planning of camp
activities between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.

45

Hypothesis V; Curriculum (C)
There will be no difference in the degree of infusion
of the camp program into the school district's cur­
riculum between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers and those who ceased camping after
1975-76.
Hypothesis VI: Finances (F)
There will be no difference in the availability of
financial resources to cover camp program expenses
between th camp programs who continuously used DNR
Centers and those who ceased camping after 1975-76.
Hypothesis VII: Evaluation (E)
There will be no difference in the camp evaluation
procedures followed by the camp programs who con­
tinuously used DNR Centers and those who ceased
camping after 1975-76.
Procedure for Analysis
The intent of this study was to make response comparisons
among and between the two sub-populations. Data, using the Likert
Scale rating on appropriate questions, were recorded, processed and
results produced using programs from the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences for use on the Michigan State University CDC 750
Computer.
One program was used to place the first 33 questions into six
scales which corresponded with six of the hypothese of the study.
The scales were then tested for reliability. The scales were tested
by a multivariate analysis of variance to determine the significance
between the two comparison sub-populations on their responses.
The responses to the remaining seven questions were crosstabulated and tested with Chi square analysis. In addition to these

46

tests for significance, mean responses to the 40 questions of this
survey were tabulated and analyzed to provide other data, including
demographics, pertinent to this study.
It was assumed that the return rate of the questionnaires
would be sufficient to provide enough data for a valid comparative
study. It was also assumed that this data would be representative of
each of the respective camping programs.
Summary of Study Design
This study was conceived after research into the field of
resident school camping and personal experience with residential
camping programs. The researcher was seeking specific factors of
homogeneity between two sub-populations of resident campers, those
who continuously used DNR Outdoor Centers from 1974 through 1979 and
those who camped only in 1974-75 adn/or 1975-76. These factors were
deemed important because of the approximately 23 percent decline in
the Outdoor Center use over this five year period. Sixty-eight
school districts were surveyed with a 42-item questionnaire to assess
the importance of seven organizational areas in the resident school
camp operation. The areas examined were administrative support,
teacher, student, and parent/community participation in the camp
planning processes. Other areas researched were the financial con­
siderations, the camp curriculum, and the role of evaluation in the
resident camp operation.
The survey instrument was checked for content validity before
it was distributed to the sub-populations. The questions in this

47

survey were grouped so as to allow analysis by multivariate analysis
and Chi Square, to determine significant differences between the subpopulations. Mean responses to 40 of the questions were also tabu­
lated and analyzed to provide additional data pertinent to this
study.
In Chapter IV the data collected from these sub-populations
will be presented and analyzed, making the necessary comparisons to
test the hypotheses and discuss the results of the information
collected.

CHAPTER III: FOOTNOTES
*Sharp, "Education and the Summer Camp--An Experiment."
2

Gilliland, "Study of Administrative Factors in Establishing
a Program of School Camping."
3

Walton, "A Study of the Administrative Practices Used in the
Operation of Thirty Selected Part Time School Camp Programs."
4

Michigan Education Director and Buyers Guide (Lansing:
Michigan Education Director, 1980).
5Hammerman and Hammerman, Teaching in the Outdoors, pp. 86-95.
^Julian W. Smith, Reynold E. Carlson, George W. Donaldson, and
Hugh B. Masters, Outdoor Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1963), pp. 103-130.
^Gilliland, School Camping, A Frontier of Curriculum
Improvement, pp. 40-51.

48

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
"It is extremely difficult in outdoor education programs to
control, let alone even identify, all the variables that may have an
impact on participants."* The scope of this study was defined to
control and place limitations on the number of variables. The
selection of 68 different camp operations using comparable Michigan
DNR Outdoor Centers was made to control the type of facility used by
these resident school camping programs and to reduce the sampling to
a manageable number. Other controls, discussed at length in Chapter
III, included the capacity of the facility, size of camper group,
staffing of camp, and consistency of camp use. Contact was made with
all 68 operations, using a questionnaire (Appendix VIII). This
chapter will address the validation process used for the question­
naire, the response rate, demographic data, reliability, tests for
significance, the hypotheses tested, and other data collected in
this study.
Content Validity
The questionnaire was validated by a panel of outdoor educa­
tion and camping experts (see Chapter III, p. 43). These parties pre­
viewed the survey instrument for content validity, with the result of

50

no appreciable suggestions for change in the content of the indi­
vidual questions. Cyphers conveyed the consensus of the panel when
saying, "You have generally done a good job on the instrument."2
Two panel members agreed with the re-organization suggested of Wiener
that "If you grouped the items under headings or topics ... it
would be easier for the respondents."3 It was the intent of this
study to compile the data according to the suggested emphasis areas,
that is, administration, finances, and evaluation, so the question­
naire format was not altered. With the exception of suggested
grammatical changes and the endorsement by the panel of experts,
phrased by Carlson thus: "Your idea is very pertinent and could pro­
vide needed input into the area of the residential outdoor education
program,"4 the researcher-developed survey instrument was determined
to be valid and ready for distribution.
Response Rate
It was the intent of this study to have 20 completed and
returned questionnaires for each of the identified sub-populations,
continuously camping, and previously camped in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76
programs. If the number of returned questionnaires exceeded 20, a
random sampling technique would be used to select the designated
number.
The completed questionnaires were returned at an irregular
rate which spanned a period of three summer months. The return rate
can be attributed to the summer months during which some of the con­
tact persons were on vacation or not at their business addresses.

51

Thirty-two questionnaires were sent to the continuously camping pro­
grams, with 29 completed and returned, for a return rate of 90.6
percent. The previously camped population of 36 returned 25 com­
pleted questionnaires, for a return rate of 69.4 percent. Combined,
this study had 79.4 percent of the questionnaires returned (54 of
68), from which the data was tabulated and analyzed.
One of the assumptions made when selecting this test group,
as stated in Chapter III, was that if a district had camped in DNR
Centers in 1974-75 and/or 1975-76 but not in the three following
years, there was the probability they no longer camped or had changed
to another facility. Returns from the 25 previously camped group
revealed that 14 had switched to other DNR facilities while 11 had
indeed quit resident camping altogether. This breakdown altered the
original intent to select randomly 20 questionnaires from each major
group. The decision was made to use all responses received. This
called for the identification of a third sub-population, those who
continued to camp at other facilities.
Demographic Data
Data collected from the 54 respondents to this survey
revealed that the majority were administrative personnel (Table 4.1).
Since these were the parties who officially requested the reservation
of their respective camp facilities, it was assumed that they were
also the directors of their camp programs. The fact that a majority
of those questioned were principals could have had an impact on this
study, as discussed later in this chapter.

52

TABLE 4.1.--Respondents to Study.
Category

Number

Percent

Teachers

12

22.2

5

9.3

33

61.1

4

7.4

Outdoor/environmental education directors
Building principals
Other

When questioned on the share of the total camp costs covered
by the school district, data indicated the students and parents were
responsible for the majority of the costs (Table 4.2.).

TABLE 4.2.--School Districts Cost of Camp.
Share

Number

Percent

73

68.5

20 to 40%

5

9.3

40 to 60%

4

7.4

60 to 80%

3

5.6

80 to 100%

5

9.3

Less than 20%

53

The data from this study revealed the typical camper from
this test population attended a school with a student population of
300-500, was in the sixth grade, and went to camp with 50 to 100
other students (Tables 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5).

TABLE 4.3.—School Building Population.
Population

Number

Percent

Less than 200 students

2

3.7

200 to 300 students

7

13.0

300 to 400 students

17

31.5

400 to 500 students

17

31.5

400 students or more

11

20.4

TABLE 4.4.—Grades Participating at Camp.
Number

Percent9

4th Grade

3

5.6

5th Grade

8

14.8

6th Grade

36

66.7

7th Grade

8

14.8

8th Grade

5

9.3

Other Grades

3

5.6

Grades

aExceeds

100% due to multiple grades camping.

54

TABLE 4.5.—Average Size School Camp.
Students

Number

Percent

2

3.7

50 to 75 students

15

27.8

75 to 100 students

24

44.4

100 to 125 students

8

14.8

More than 125 students

5

9.3

Less than 50 students

Further investigation aimed at the camping student found a
wide range in the reported levels of family income (Table 4.6).

TABLE 4.6.--Yearly Family Income.
Number

Percent

Less than $10,000/year

11

20.4

$10,000 to $25,000/year

24

44.4

$25,000 to $40,000/year

14

15.9

More than $40,000/year

5

9.3

Income Level

These demographics indicate that the populations tested in
this study were very similar to those found in previous research on
school camping. Camps were typically the administrative responsibility

55

of the building principal, as found by Frey5 and Pepper.6 The popula­
tion of the participating school building was between 300-500 students
with sixth graders usually camping with 50 to 100 other students.
These findings support the data in studies by Nelson,7 Turner,8 and
Walton.

g

The majority of the campers came from middle income

($10,000-$40,000) families, as Ambry,^ Schaffer,^ and Walton^
discovered. Each of the campers paid the majority of the camp costs,
more than 80 percent, similarly found in research by Rupff13 and
Turner.14
Reliability
In an attempt to focus on certain general areas of school
camping, questions from the first 33 questionnaires were placed in
the six scales of Administrative Support (AS), Teacher Involvement
(TI), Community Involvement (CI), Student Involvement (SI),
Curriculum (C), and Finances (F) (Appendix IX). These researcherdetermined scales were based upon the general content emphasis of
each question.
A Cronbach alpha reliability was run on each of these scales.
The scales were then adjusted by the deletion of certain questions
(refer to Delete on scales i Appendix IX), until the reliability co­
efficient of each scale was above .6, with the exception of
Finances (Table 4.7).
The closer a reliability coefficient is to the value of 1.00,
the more the scale is free of error variance. The error variance may
be defined as "the sum effect of the chance differences between

56

TABLE 4.7.—Reliability of Scales.
Number of
Questions

Reliability
A=

10

.68757

Teacher Involvement (TI)

6

.61273

Community Involvement (CI)

4

.67064

Student Involvement (SI)

3

.63267

Curriculum Issues (C)

2

.69350

Finances (F)

4

.29543

Scale
Administrative Support (AS)

persons that arise from factors associated with a particular measurement."15 Those factors in this questionnaire may have been the word­
ing of the questions, the ordering of these questions, the question
content or the mood of the respondent at the time of the questionnaire
completion.
The questions eliminated to achieve the reliability coeffi­
cients found in Table 4.7 and the possible reasons for their
influence upon the reliability of each scale are as follows:
Question 7, regarding the camp director being a classroom
teacher, was deleted from the teacher involvement scale for it
appeared to be concerned more with the administrative aspects of
camp than the teachers' roles. Question 25, regarding resource
personnel, was omitted from the community involvement for it appeared
to be more concerned with the staffing at camp than with the community.

57

Question 24, the students and parents responsibility for
financing the food and lodging costs of camp, was deleted from student
involvement for it was financially based and more appropriately
belonged in the finances scale.
Question 26, regarding the integration of the camping program
into the school curriculum, was deleted from the scale of curriculum
issues. It was more appropriately concerned with the entire school
program, not the camp curriculum as the other questions in that
scale.
The low reliability of the finances scale might be attributed
to lack of uniformity in the questions. While all are financially
based, they cover three different aspects of the financial picture:
students, staff, and district. If the researcher had concentrated
on a singular aspect or increased the number of questions on these
three components, the scale might have been strengthened with a cor­
responding higher reliability coefficient.
A confirmatory factor analysis was run on the 33 variables
to see if the mathematical analysis of these scales confirmed the
researcher's determination of the scales. This analysis produced
scales for three, four, five, and six factors which were not sub­
stantially meaningful. A non-restrictive factor analysis produced
twelve scales. With only 5 to 60 percent agreement between these
five factor analyses and the researcher-determined scales, combined
with the illogical grouping of the questions by factor analysis, the
researcher-determined scales were used in this study.

58

This low level of agreement indicated that the design of the
questions and their placement into the six scales could have been
altered to achieve a higher degree (percentage) of agreement. This
alteration could have similarly increased the reliability of each
scale.
Multivariate Test
After each of the previous scales were tested for reliability,
the scales were tested for significance between sub-populations. The
total 54 respondents to this study were sub-divided into the three
sub-populations: those who continued to camp at DNR Outdoor Centers,
those who continued to camp but switched facilities; and those who
ceased camping after 1974-75 or 1975-76. Multivariate analysis of
variance was run to determine if there was any significant difference
in the six scales across these three sub-populations. The resultant
p value was .66812 using the Wilks Lambda Test. This test is the
recommended F test for the non-orthogonal (unequal cell sizes)
design in this study.
The score of this test indicated that there was no discernable
internal relationship between the responses of the three subpopulations over the six scales. With this apparent lack of signifi­
cance, further tests were deemed necessary, using the univariate
tests of significance.
Study of the Hypotheses
The univariate tests of significance was run on the six
scales of this study. The results, reported in Table 4.8, indicating

TABLE 4.8.—Mean Responses According to Scales by Sub-populations and Univariate Tests of
Significance.
Sub-population

(AS)

(TI)

(CI)

(SI)

(C)

(F)

Continued Camping
DNR Centers

1.967

2.552

2.379

3.228

2.609

2.531

Continued Camping
Other Facilities

1.760

2.580

2.182

2.946

2.364

2.182

Ceased Camping
after 1975-76

1.857

1.642

2.417

2.114

2.810

2.093

Mean Entire Group

1.896

2.581

2.349

3.141

2.611

2.346

Univariate Test of
Significance p =

.54368

.90059

.62485

.35519

.41269

.07769

60

a lack of significance, will be discussed in the context of each of
the hypotheses of this study. Significance would indicate a relation­
ship between the sub-populations and the six scales that did not
happen by chance.
Hypothesis I: Administrative Support
There will be no difference in the administrative
support between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, those who continued to camp at
other facilities, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .54368, indicating
no significance, thereby the null hypothesis is accepted.
While the responses between sub-populations were not found to
be significant, administrative support was deemed the most important
type of support by the respondents to this study. Based on a 1 to 5
Likert Scale rating of importance, with 1 being very important and
5 being of no importance, the mean response to the questions grouped
in the administrative scale was 1.896 (Table 4.8).
When investigating this scale in detail, the open support of
the building principal (1.204) and general administrative support
(1.333) were valued as most important (Appendix X). Conversely, the
school district's responsibility to fund the camp operation was rated
as the least important of the questions in this scale, 3.278
(Appendix X).
This data confirms the conclusions of the studies by Schafer*®
and Frey17 on the important role of administration in camping programs.
Similarly implied, as in Pepper's

18

studies, is the responsibility of

the school administration to provide the camp program leadership.

61

Myers stated, "The importance of leadership as a primary
factor in the success of resident camp programs is not only widely
expounded by camp directors and administrators, but is supported by
the quantity of research efforts which have attempted to examine the
various aspects of camp leadership."19
In the open-ended response section of the questionnaire,
admnistrative support was listed by 56 percent of the respondents as
the major reason for their camp continuation.
Generally, the responses to the specific questions in the
administrative scale and the free response section were somewhat
predictable since more than 70 percent of the people answering the
questionnaire for this study were administrators. It is logical to
assume the responses to this portion of the study to be slanted in a
pro-administration line.
Hypothesis II: Teacher Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of
teacher involvement between the camp programs
who continuously used DNR centers, those who
continued to camp at other facilities, and
those who ceased camping after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .90059 (Table 4.8)
indicating no significance, thereby the null hypothesis is accepted.
Teacher involvement was given a mean response of 2.581 on
the questions in the teacher involvement scale, Table 4.8. This
response level is not definitive enough to make any generalizations
on the relative importance of teachers based on the scale as a whole.

62

If Questions 27 and 30 had been omitted from this scale, the
composite mean response would rise to 1.879, giving teacher involve­
ment the highest ranking of all six scales (Appendix X). From the
first 33 questions in this survey, Question 12 on the teaching staff's
active role in planning camp, and Question 17, concerning the teaching
staff's conducting classes, received the highest mean values—1.185
and 1.167, respectively.
The indication is that in the opinion of the respondents to
this survey these were the two most important facets of a school
camping operation. These high mean values would suggest that without
the direct support and involvement of the classroom teacher, there
really cannot be an ongoing camp program.
?0

The studies of Willson,

21

Frey,

2?

Schafer,

and Craddock

23

similarly found consensus on need for such teacher involvement.
Watson's reported research showed that "genuine participation
increased motivation, adaptability and speed of learning. The key to
achieving such outcomes was genuine and meaningful participation and
not pretended sharing."24
It is noteworthy to remember that the majority of the
respondents in this study were building principals and administrators,
not teachers. In the opinion of these administrators, the teachers
still ranked as the most meaningful component of the camp operation.
The two questions which appreciably lowered the mean value
of this scale, Questions 27 and 30, dealt with previous experience
and training. The need for previous camping experience by the camp
teacher, Question 27, was given a mean response rating of 2.963

63

(Appendix X). With the Likert Scale rating of 3.0 signifying
"undecided," this response indicates an uncertainty on the part of
the respondents as to whether there was real value in having previous
camping experiences. This indecision was contrary to the conclusions
of Wenrich25 and Schafer26 who both felt that camping experiences
were needed by the teacher in order to assure a successful camp pro­
gram.
Response to Question 30 on the need for formal training in
outdoor education brought a mean response of 3.537 (Appendix X) based
on the previously described Likert Scale. This lower value on the
importance of formal training is contrary to the conclusions in studies
9!
?Q
by MacMillan, Holt, and Hug.
Their data indicated that
teachers must have this training in outdoor education in order to
successfully conduct resident school camping programs.
Hypothesis III: Community Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of
parent/community involvement between the camp
programs who continuously used DNR Centers, those
who continued to camp at other facilities, and
those who ceased camping after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .62485 (Table 4.8),
indicating no significance, thereby the null hypothesis was accepted.
The parent/community involvement scale was given a mean
response of 2.349 based on the previously described Likert Scale
(Table 4.8). This indicates that the respondents to this study felt
that, overall, community support was a vital link in a school camping
program. This response agrees with the conclusions of Hibbs30 and

64

Sato

31

when they studied the administrative and organizational factor

surrounding the establishment of school camping programs.
The question from this scale receiving the most support,
1.296 on the Likert Scale, concerned the open community support for
the camping program, was number 3 (Appendix X).
This level of support, ranking the fourth highest among the
33 questions asked, seems indicative of the importance of the com­
munity in the camp operation. As the Superintendent of the San
Diego's Public Schools stated, in reference to their county-wide
residential school camping program initiated by Pumula:
One of the amazing things about the camping program has
been the overwhelming public and parental support of the
program. We've had some who objected to it, some council
members, some members of the Board of Supervisors, who came
on the Camp Commission determined that their role in life
was to get rid of that particular piece of budget. And ,p
after a time they became solid supporters of the program.
Hypothesis IV: Student Involvement
There will be no difference in the degree of
involvement by the student in planning of camp
activities between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, those who continued to camp at
other facilities, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .35519 (Table 4.8),
indicating no significance, thereby the null hypothesis is accepted.
The student involvement scale was given a mean response of
3.141 (Table 4.8), indicating that the respondents were undecided on
the importance of student involvement in the camp program. However,
when questioned on the importance of student involvement in planning
the camp program (Question 10), a mean response of 2.037 was given by

65

54 respondents to this study (Appendix X). With 2 meaning 'important,1
this response concurs with the findings of studies by Kielsmeier33
and Mason 34 that students must be active in planning their own camp
programs.
The data from Question 39 (Table 4.9), indicated that the
respondents to this study felt that students followed the teaching
staff and principal in determining the camp program. Although the
mean response level was lower, 2.370, it still indicated the relative
importance of this group to the camp planning process.
Responses to questions on the importance of previous school
and personal camping experiences, Questions 28 and 29, found total
group means of 4.537 and 4.593, respectively, based on the previously
described Likert Scale (Appendix X). In the research for this study,
nothing was found to confirm or refute this seemingly low importance
rating for the experience of a camper.
With two of the three questions in the student involvement
scale receiving such relatively low ranking in importance, the topic
of student involvement may not have been adequately assessed. The
mean response for the scale (3.141) was probably not indicative of
the relative importance of students because of the wide discrepancy
between the values given these three questions.
The greatest variation in mean scores among the three subpopulations, by scales, was found with student involvement. The
two continued camping populations had similar mean scores near 3
while the population which no longer camped was near 2. Speculation
might lead one to question if there is any relationship between the

66

decision to continue camping, the student involvement in planning
camp, and previous camping experience.
Hypothesis V: Curriculum
There will be no difference in the degree of infusion
of the camp program into the school district's cur­
riculum between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, those who continued to camp at
other facilities, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .41269 (Table 4.8),
indicating no significance, thereby the null hypothesis is accepted.
The scale for curriculum did not have enough questions to
measure adequately the curriculum area. The mean response for the
scale, 2.611 (Table 4.8), indicates some degree of importance; but
with only two questions it is difficult to illustrate any differences
between sub-populations.
The response to the individual questions did indicate some
relative importance for the camping program being a part of the Board
of Education approved curriculum, 1.815 mean score for Question 18
(Appendix X). This level of importance agreed with the studies of
Craddock35 and Schafer36 that the camp program should be integrated
into the regular school program. The other question in this scale,
Question 14, had a mean response of 2.833 (Appendix X), indicating
uncertainty on the part of the respondents as to the importance of
following a standard camp curriculum.
One question in this study, Question 39, specifically
addressed the topic of the relative responsibility of program deter­
mination (Table 4.9). While it is interesting to note how the 54

67

TABLE 4.9.--Relative Responsibility for Camping Program
Determination (Question 39).
Group

Mean Response

Teachers

1.019

Principal

2.259

Students

2.370

Parents

3.185

Board of Education

3.141

respondents answered this question, indicating very strong support
for teacher responsibility, this data could have been of greater
value to the study of curriculum if the question had been worded
differently.
Hypothesis VI: Finances
There will be no difference in the availability
of financial resources to cover camp program
expenses between the camp programs who continuously
used DNR Centers, those who continued to camp at
other facilities, and those who ceased camping
after 1975-76.
The p value from the univariate tests was .07769 (Table 4.8),
indicating no significance, thereby the null significance level of
the finances scale (.077) was close in absolute value. This leads
to speculation that if there had been a reliable scale, significance
could have been reached. The questions, grouped as they were in the
finance scale, were not reliable enough to make a valid test for this
study.

68

The mean response for the finances scale was 2.346 (Table
4.8), indicating a relative degree of importance. This mean value
includes one of the component questions, Question 23, which had an
appreciably different value (3.185) than the other components. If
this question had been removed from the scale, a more uniform response
level would have been given on finances.
The response to Question 23, indicating an indifference to
the importance of staff remuneration, is contrary to the results of
Schafer's study.37 That study concluded that it was important for
teaching staff to receive extra remuneration for their camping duties.
The previously stated condition that data for this study came from
responses of administrators, not teachers, might offer an explanation
as to the reason form these differences.
The response to the query on the students/parents' responsi­
bility for financing camp expenses, Question 24, had a mean of 1.981
(Appendix X). This confirms the findings of Jones and Swan38 when
they questioned 566 parents of campers. Both studies indicated that
it is the parents' responsibility to cover the basic camp costs of
room and board.
There were 54 school districts which responded to this study,
11 of which ceased camping after 1974-75 or 1975-76. All 11 listed
the lack of finances and admnistrative support as the reason their
camping program is no longer in operation (Table 4.10). Such complete
agreement to a single area in an open-ended question gives another
reason to question if the scale on finances adequately covered the
topic.

69

TABLE 4.10.—Major Reasons Camping Program Is or Is Not Continuing
(Question 42).
Sub-population

No. Times
Mentioned

Percent

Continuing to Camp
Supportive teaching staff

26

60.5

Supportive administration

24

55.8

Supportive community/parents

22

51.2

Supportive students

17

39.5

Low cost to parents

5

11.6

Low cost to school district

5

11.6

Lack of finances

11

100.0

Lack of administrative support

11

100.0

Lack of teaching staff support

5

45.5

No longer the need, students have
other camp experiences

2

18.2

Ceased to Camp

Hypothesis VII: Evaluation
There will be no difference in the camp evaluation
procedures followed by the camp programs who
continuously used DNR Centers, those who continued
to camp at other facilities, and those who ceased
camping after 1975-76.
A cross-tabulation of the responses to Question 34 regarding
the need for formal evaluation of camp between these three

70

sub-populations, resulted in a Chi square value of .2817, and a
Cramers V correlation of .2166 (Table 4.11), indicating no signifi­
cance. These results make the evaluation null hypothesis acceptable.

TABLE 4.11.--Cross Tabulation of Responses to Question 34—Camp
Evaluation.
Significance
Level of
Chi Square

Cramer's V
(Correlation)

Camp formally evaluated

.2817

.2166

Evaluated by teaching staff

.2817

.2166

Evaluated by principal

.0531

.3297

Evaluated by students

.0235

.3728

Evaluated by parents of students

.1156

.2827

Component

While this study did not substantiate the comparative significance of
evaluation, 85 percent (46 out of the 54 total respondents), reported
the camp program should be formally evaluated. There was 100 percent
agreement that the camp staff, comprised of teachers, adult counsellors,
and resource staff, should be responsible for this evaluation. Other
parties deemed important to the evaluation of camp were the partici­
pating students, building principal, and the parents (Table 4.12).
It is interesting to note that the consumers (campers) of the educa­
tional service (the camp program) were listed the second most fre­
quently as the party responsible for evaluating the camp.

71

TABLE 4.12.—Responsibility for Evaluation of Camp (Question 34).
Group

Number of Responses

Percent

Camp staff

46

100.0

Students

37

80.0

Building principal

25

54.0

Parents of campers

23

50.0

These responses on evaluation indicate the attitude that
evaluation is definitely necessary and should be a joint venture
among all the participating groups in the residential school camp.
This confirms the conclusions of studies by Hammerman and Hammerman,39
Rillo,40 Parkman,41 and Sato42 that camp evaluation was deemed
important.
Summary of Hypotheses
The responses of the 54 school districts involved in this
study did not indicate any statistically significant differences on
the decision to continue, switch, or cease camping according to the
seven hypotheses tested. The data did indicate variance in the mean
response for scales which correlated with six of these hypotheses
(Table 4.23).
When the mean responses for the first 33 questions were tabu­
lated, community and principal support, teacher involvement and camp
administration received the rating as most important on the Likert

72

Table 4.13.—Mean Response According to Scales.
AS
1.896
No Importance

IT
2.581

CI
2.349

SI
3.141

C
2.611

F
2.346

5

Little Importance 4
Undecided

3

Important

2

Very Important

1

Scale (Appendix X). Conversely, responses to the students' previous
school and personal camping experiences, the necessity of the camp
director to be an administrator, the responsibility of the school
district to fund all or part of the camp expenses and the need for a
camping teacher to have formal training in outdoor education had the
lowest rating on the Likert Scale of importance.
As previously indicated, in spite of the unreliability of
the finance scale, this scale was still closer to a level of signifi­
cance than any other scale. This could suggest that financial con­
siderations, in some form, might have an appreciable effect on the
decision to continue with a residential school camping program. That
conclusion cannot be reached with this set of data due to the
unreliability of the scale.

73

Other Data
The responses to the final questions of this study, 35 to 40,
were cross-tabulated by the three sub-populations: camping at DNR
Centers, camping at other facilities, and those who ceased camping
after 1974-75 or 1975-76, to determine any significant differences
these variables might have had on the decision to continue camping
(Table 4.14). With an Alpha level of .05 indicating significance,
none of the responses on these questions reached a level of signifi­
cance.
The Cramer's V (Table 4.14) is a correlation coefficient that
indicates the strength of the relationship between the two variables.
The nearer the coefficient is to ±1.0, the stronger this relationship.
The responses to Question 35 on the share of the total camp
costs covered by the school district did not indicate any significant
differences between the three sub-populations. Data did indicate
that in 69 percent of the school districts surveyed, districts' share
of the cost for the total camp program was less than 20 percent
(Table 4.2). The research by Jones and Swan^ similarly found that
the parents/students cover the majority of the school camp costs
(room and board) with the school district providing transportation
and instructional materials.
Question 35, worded differently, might possibly have been
more appropriately placed in the finances scale so as to strengthen
the scale and thus alter the results of this study.
There were no significant differences between sub-populations
when the size of the camping group (Question 36) and school building

74

TABLE 4.14.-Cross-Tabulation of Responses to Questions 35 and 40.
Significance
Level of
Chi Square

Cramer's V
(Correlation)

35. Share of costs covered by district

.2827

.3338

36. Size of camp group

.0838

.3590

37. Size of school building

.5005

.2607

.6658
.0642
.0918
.4207
.3855
.6658

.1228
.3189
.2974
.2792
.1879
.1228

.3199
.7090
.3859

.2548
.2246
.3139

.1705
.5426
.5337
.5469

.5106
.5647
.4974
.4365

Question

38. Grade that camps:
4th grade
5th grade
6th grade
7th grade
8th grade
Other
39. Program responsibility
Teachers
Students
Principal
40. Yearly family income
Less than
$10,000 to
$25,000 to
$40,000 or

$10,000/year
$25,000/year
$40,000/year
more

75

size (Question 37) were compared (Table 4.14). These results confirmed the studies by Turner.44 Data did indicate that 71 percent
of the camping groups had between 50 and 100 campers (Table 4.5),
confirming the findings of Walton45 when he studied 30 Michigan school
camp programs.
Sixty-three percent of the campers came from school buildings
that housed from 300 to 500 students (Table 4.3). The sixth grade
was the most commonly found (67 percent) camping grade (Table 4.4).
No significance was indicated between the sub-populations' camping
grades, or the size of their school and the decision to continue
camping (Table 4.14). The next most popular camping grades were
fifth and seventh (Table 4.4). Data from the Turner46 and Walton47
studies revealed similar findings that the typical camping grades
were fifth and sixth.
There were no significant differences found between the subpopulations when questioned on the responsibility for determining the
program at camp (Table 4.14). When asked to rank the relative degree
of responsibility, teachers were ranked the most responsible, followed
by principals, students, parents, and the Board of Education,
respectively (Table 4.9). These results correspond with the research
by MacMillan,48 Will son,49 and Wenrich,50 that teachers and administra­
tors must provide the leadership in developing the camp program.
The responses to Question 40 indicated that there was no
apparent correlation between family income level and the three subpopulations' decision on camping (Table 4.14). Forty-five percent of
the campers came from income levels of $10,000 to $25,000, while 70

76

percent fell between $10,000 and $40,000 yearly family income (Table
4.6). It seems quite apparent that campers come from the typical,
middle income family, confirming the findings of Turner.51
The final question in this survey instrument, Question 42,
solicited open responses for the major reasons the camping program
was or was not continuing. Table 4.10 illustrates that the continu­
ing camp programs focused on four general reasons for continuing:
supportive teaching staff, administration, community/parents, and
students. These reasons confirm the previously presented data on the
importance of these support bases for a resident school camping pro­
gram.
Conversely, those who had not camped since 1975-76 found uni­
form agreement on the lack of administative/financial support with
some agreement on the lack of support from the teaching staff. Both
of these results confirm the importance of staff support and possible
significance of finances in the decision to terminate the school camp
program.
Chapter V will address the conclusions made from this study
and present recommendations for future study in the area of finance,
camp program, evaluation, and teachers.

CHAPTER IV: FOOTNOTES
Frederick A. Staley, "Research, Evaluation and Measurement
in Outdoor Education," The Communicator, Journal of the New York
State Outdoor Education 11 (1980): 13.
2

Vincent A. Cyphers to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 20, 1980.

^Morris Wiener to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 12, 1980.
4Marcia Carlson to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 14, 1980.
5Frey, "Job Analysis of School Camp Directors."
^Pepper, "School Camping with Emphasis on Program Objectives,
Curriculum, Administration, and Evaluation."
^Nelson, "Criteria in Selection and Development Outdoor
Sites," pp. 17-21.
Q

Turner, "Administrative Procedures in Outdoor Laboratory
Programs."
g

Walton, "Administrative Practices in Part-time Camps."

^Ambry, "Investigation of Administrative Problems."
^Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Outdoor
Education."
12

Walton, "Administrative Practices in Part-time Camps."
13Rupff, "Comparison of Aspirations with Achievements in
School Camps."
14Turner, "Administrative Procedures in Outdoor Laboratory
Programs."
15Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Education Research
(New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971), p. 144.
^Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education."
^Frey, "Job Analysis of School Camp Directors."
77

78

18

Pepper, "School Camping with Emphasis on Program Objectives,
Curriculum, Administration and Evaluation."
19Judith L. Myers, "A Summary of Camp Leadership Research,"
Research Camping and Environmental Education (Pennsylvania State
University: HPER Series #11, 1976), p. 349.
20

Will son, Research Camping and Environmental Education,

p. 324.
21

Frey, "Job Analysis of School Camp Directors."

22

Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education."
23Craddock, "Suggested School Camping Program."
24G. Watson, "What Psychology Can We Trust," Reading in
Learning and Human Abilities, edited by R. R. Ripple (New York:
Harper & Row, 1964), p. 29.
25Wenrich, "Staffing of Public Elementary School Camps."
26

Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education."
27MacMillan, "Duties and Responsibilities of School Camp
Directors."
28

Holt, "Competencies Needed by Teachers in Resident
Outdoor Education."
29Hug, "Factors Which Influence Teachers in Outdoor
Activities."
30Hibbs, "Development of Outdoor Laboratories in Public
Schools."
31Sato, "Guide for Organization and Administration of Outdoor
Education Programs."
32Ralph Dailard, cited by Wilbur Schram, Classroom Out-ofDoors (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Sequoia Press/Publishers, 1969), p. 162.
33Keilsmeier, "Experience as Focus in Alternative Programs,"
p. 12.
34

Mason, Camping and Education.

79

35

Craddock, "Suggested School Camping Program."
36
Schafer, "Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education."
38Jones and Swan, "Parents' Perception of Resident Outdoor
Education," p. 19.
39Hammerman and Hammerman, Teaching in the Outdoors, pp. 127135.
40Rillo, "Role of Coordination in Outdoor Education Programs."
41Parkman, "Guidelines for Conversion of Camp to Outdoor
Center."
42Sato, "Guide for Organization and Administration of
Outdoor Education Programs."
43Jones and Swan, "Parents'Perception of Resident Outdoor
Education," p. 19.
44Turner, "Administrative Procedures in Outdoor Laboratory
Programs."
45Walton, "Administrative Practices in Part-time Camps."
46Turner, "Administrative Procedures in Outdoor Laboratory
Programs."
47Walton, "Administrative Practices in Part-time Camps."
48MacMillan, "Duties and Responsibilities of School Camp
Directors."
49Will son, Research Camping and Environmental Education,
p. 324.
50Wenrich, "Staffing of Public Elementary School Camps."
51Turner, "Administrative Procedures in Outdoor Laboratory
Programs."

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND REFLECTIONS
Introduction
This comparative study of factors and practices in selected
residential school camping programs was undertaken to determine:
(1) the reasons for the sharp decline in the use of Michigan Depart­
ment of Natural Resources Outdoor Centers by residential school
camping groups, (2) the reasons why certain school districts continue
to operate their camp programs at DNR facilities while others ceased
to camp, and (3) what support mechanisms are needed to maintain
Michigan resident school camping programs.
A 42-item questionnaire was the instrument employed to survey
68 different school camp programs to ascertain the answers to these
three questions. The first 33 questions were placed into six scales
to test six of the seven hypotheses of this study. These scales were
Administrative Support, Teacher Involvement, Community Involvement,
Student Involvement, Curriculum, and Finances. The seventh hypothesis,
on evaluation, was tested using responses from the survey question
directly relating to evaluation.
The hypotheses were searching for significant differences
between the sub-populations of the programs polled when tested across
these six scales. The sub-populations were the school districts who
80

81

continued to camp at DNR Outdoor Centers, districts who continued
to camp at other facilities, and districts who ceased camping after
1974-75 or 1975-76.
Major Conclusions
The data did not indicate any significant differences between
these sub-populations and thereby did not indicate the significant
reasons for the sharp decline in the use of the DNR Outdoor Centers
by residential school camping groups.
The hypotheses of this study were accepted and thus reasons
why certain districts continue to operate their camp while others
ceased to camp were not discovered. Data did not indicate why cer­
tain school districts continued to use DNR Centers while others
switched to another camping facility. However, this question was
not directly asked because those districts who had switched facilities
were not identified at the time the survey was administered.
The reasons for the termination of the camping programs of
one sub-population were explicitly defined. Data collected from
those districts who ceased camping after 1974-75 or 1975-76 showed
agreement as to why they were no longer camping: the lack of
administrative and financial support. In addition to 100 percent
agreement on those two reasons, the loss of teacher support was also
listed by a number of school districts. While these reasons are not
significant in a comparative fashion, they are of major importance
when considering this particular sub-population.

82

This study did indicate a number of areas which were of
importance in the establishment and maintenance of a resident camping
program, particularly administrative support, teacher and community
involvement, and finances.
When the 'continuing to camp1 sub-populations were asked for
their continuation reasons, more than 50 percent of the respondents
listed supportive teaching staff, administration, and community/
parents. Supportive students, the relative low cost to the parents
and the low cost to the school district were other responses to this
open-ended question.
The similarity between these reasons for continuation and
the rank ordering of importance found within and between the scales
of this study point to the inter-relationship of support mechanisms
needed to continue a camping program.
From the scales, the high ranking of support by the building
principal, followed in order by administration, school board, and
superintendent support indicated that overall administrative backing
was deemed very important for a camp program. This direct-line rela­
tionship could indicate the influence of the building principal upon
the remainder of the administrative forces. In a pyramid fashion,
this individual seemed to be the base of the administrative support.
Data showed that administrators viewed the teachers' active
role in planning and conducting the camp classes as very important.
This view is another indication of the principal's influence on the
teachers' involvement in the camp operation. Playing lesser roles of
importance were the teachers' orientation to the out-of-doors and

83

their involvement in an in-service training program. The necessity
for teachers to be formally trained in outdoor education was deemed
of little importance.
The open support of the community at large was deemed crucial
as was the Board of Education's acceptance of camping as part of the
school curriculum. Similarly, the inter-relationship of these two
major forces can be seen, for without the support of one group, the
efforts of the other would be futile.
The willingness of the students and parents to finance the
majority (80 percent) of the camp expenses was also indicated in the
data. Implied was the willingness of the Board of Education to cover
the remaining 20 percent of the camp costs. This financial support
indicated the prioritization given to residential school camping by
a combination of the school board, district staff, and the community
at large.
Information in this study indicated a desire by the camp
staff, campers, building principal, and parents of the campers to
have the camp operation formally evaluated. Parents will be increas­
ingly more important in light of the thrust for public awareness,
accountability, and parental funding found in today's public education.
This desire for evaluation did not seem to be translated into practice
for there were few indications of ongoing evaluation procedures in
the camp operations surveyed.
If the topic of program evaluation had been more thoroughly
investigated as to the actual evaluative practices, followed by the

84

various respondents in this study, the cause and effect principle
of this camp component might have been more meaningful.
Support Mechanisms
The final question in this study was for the identification
of support mechanisms needed to maintain school camping programs. To
this end, the rank order relationship of the principal, community and
parental support, followed by financial maintenance, teacher involve­
ment, the camp program (curriculum), and student involvement, were
determined to be the crucial forces for camp continuation. It is
important to remember the strength of the relationship between these
forces. The influences they have on one another must be considered
important, because all of these component parts must mesh together,
to provide a continuum of support.
The principal appeared to be the focal point around which the
other support bases were built. That individual alone could set the
stage for the nourishment or demise of the residential school camp.
However, unless all of these other foundations are also present,
particularly community, parent and financial support, residential
camping will have a difficult, if not impossible, time of existing in
the educational system.
Other Conclusions
According to this study, it was not important that the camping
students had previous camping experiences, either personal or through
another school program. The general support of students was indicated

85

of value but it did not appear to be the crucial factor in the con­
tinuation of the camp operation.
Data indicated that the participating students played a rela­
tively important role in the camp planning process, following the
teaching staff and principal.
There were no specific conclusions about the economic back­
ground of the camper, along with the size of the building and camp
group or the school grade of the camper. Data from this study indi­
cated that a typical school camping operation would be found in a
school building area comprised of middle income families with yearly
incomes of $10,000-$40,000.
The camping students would be in the sixth, fifth, or seventh
grades (in that order) and would come from a school building with a
student population of 300-400. A representative camping group would
number around 80 students, rarely going under 50 or over 125 campers.
Recommendations for Future Study
Finances
It is recommended that studies be made on the importance
of finances to the continuation of the camping program.
Results of this study indicated the area of finances warrants
further investigation, particularly as it relates to determining
significant differences between the three test sub-populations.
Some of the financial questions unanswered are:
1. Did the camp programs who left the DNR facilities
but continued to camp, do so for financial reasons?

86

2. Are the expressed financial concerns of those who
have not camped since 1974-75 or 1975-76 related to
negotiated teacher contracts?
3. Is the cost effectiveness of the camp experience a
factor in it's continuation?
4. If camping was eliminated for financial reasons,
did the teaching staff have input into the school
district's budget building process?
5. If not for financial reasons, why did the 14 districts
leave the DNR facilities for other camps?
6. Were the economic conditions of Michigan's educational
system, in 1980 when this survey was taken, of signifi­
cant importance to the responses made to the survey
questions?
7. What were the financial reasons that caused the 11
districts in this study to cease camping after 1975
or 1976?
8. Does camping fall into that category of "frills,"
which came into school programs in the 1950s and
1960s, that possibly the educational budgets of the
1970s and 1980s can no longer finance?
9. Are the 'hidden' costs of transportation, teaching
supplies and teacher salaries significant factors in
the decision to discontinue camp programs?
10. Is there a relationship between the quality of the
camp programming and extra duty compensation received
by camp staff in some camp programs?
Evaluation
The general concensus from the 54 respondents in this study
was that evaluation is desired. The implied lack of evaluative data,
and this researcher's opinion, might suggest that little is being
done in this area. Some of the evaluation questions unanswered are:
1. Are school camp operations adequately evaluated?
2. If school camp operations are evaluated, what type of
evaluation takes place?

87

3. Can the effect of changes in the attitudes and values
of the student, as the result of the camp experience,
be evaluated over a short term basis?
4. Are camp operations evaluated by school district or
camp staff developed evaluation instruments?
5. Are standardized measurement instruments used in the
evaluation of camping operations?
6. What facet of the camp operation is evaluated—the
campers, staff, program, administration, or the
entire camp operation?
7. Are the decisions to continue or discontinue camping
programs based on evaluative data?
Teachers
The data from this study are contrary to the findings of pre­
viously mentioned studies which specify the necessity for pre-service
and in-service training for camping teachers. Some of the unanswered
questions on camping teachers are:
1. Do pre-service and in-service teacher training
programs equate with the continuation of camping
programs?
2. Can the effectiveness of teacher training, both
pre-service and in-service, be measured in terms
of the quality of a camp program?
3. Are teachers' attitudes toward the out-of-doors
transferred to the participating campers?
4. Is the effectiveness of the educational experience
on the campers appreciably altered when the classroom
teacher is not involved in the camp planning and
operation?
5. Is the relative importance of the classroom teacher,
found in this study, contrary to the trend found in
today's colleges and universities toward the prepara­
tion of professional camp staff?
6. Is there a relationship between the age and experi­
ences of a teaching staff member and their willing­
ness to participate in a resident camp program?

88

7. What is the relationship between a supportive
building administrator and the classroom teacher's
willingness to participate in a resident school
camp program?
Caution must be exercised when undertaking the previously
mentioned topics for future study. This study indicated that the
standard research methodologies typically used in education often do
not fit the scope of the residential school camping program. Many
of the effects of the resident camp might be more appropriately
measured over a long term (years) basis. As Staley suggested:
One reason for our failures in outdoor education and educa­
tional research in general may well be a result of using
inappropriate models of evaluation research. The strength
of outdoor education is the interaction that occurs between
people, activities, and the outdoors and this strength may
be best measured using sociological and holistic alternative,
evaluative methodologies.1
We may indeed be looking for short-term solutions for longterm problems. Many societal and educational changes have taken place
since the inception of residential school camping more than 40 years
ago. Some would say they have had an appreciable effect on the camp­
ing movement. Others still concur with the thoughts of Mel by when
he said:
When we see the general education values that are to be
secured through school camping, we realize that there is no
frill that is nice to have but that can be dispensed with
in times of financial stress and strain. I believe that
educational values can be secured through camping that can
be secured in no other way or at least in no other way with
equal effectiveness.2
The research of this decade can go a long way in determining
the eventual longevity of the residential school camp in Michigan.

89

Reflections
In looking back on seventeen years of resident school camping,
the author has a few reflections to share with the reader.
Some of the uniquenesses of these experiences for youth and
adults alike have already been illustrated. But what is the future
of the resident school camp? The author would suggest:
1. That school camping can truly be a community education.
If properly developed, operated, and evaluated, it can reach farther
into the community-at-large than almost any other educational opera­
tion. The uniqueness of this 'off campus' form of learning brings
forth resources from the community which can hardly be duplicated in
the regular classroom setting.
2. That a major bi-product of the camping program can be the
positive relationship built between the school staff and the taxpaying community. Camping can develop the same sense of community at
the lower grade levels that comes with inter-scholastic athletics
or the performing arts at the higher grade levels.
3. That one cannot emphasize enough the importance of the
building principal. This is the "key" person who can make or break
the operation. The principal can run interference for the enthusi­
astic and energetic teacher who develops such an experience for the
students. Without the principal's necessary acknowledgments and
needed verbal recognition, it would be difficult at best to have a
successful program. The principal alone can have a great impact on
fellow administrators, teaching, and auxiliary staff and the community
with whom they regularly work.

90

4. That system-wide camp curricula, which do not vary
between the camping groups, have a tendency to eliminate some of the
effectiveness of the camp operation. The benefits of a uniform pro­
gram are counterbalanced by the loss of building autonomy when it
comes to planning the camp program.
5. That camp operations conducted at facilities like the
DNR Outdoor Centers tend to find the teaching staff more educationally
involved. Teachers must get involved in all facets of the program,
as compared to the facility where there is a resident camp staff and
a pre-determined program. This teacher involvement brings forth more
student, administrator, parent, and community participation, a total
group consciousness. This type of organization allows for an
integration of experiences into the school year curriculum that can
be difficult to duplicate in other camp organizational patterns.
6. That those involved in teacher education at colleges and
universities have a vested interest in utilizing the out-of-doors in
the educative process. Those people can be far more helpful to the
school camping districts, with the provision of support services,
than they have been to date.
7. That educational training prior to a camping experience
might be desired but in no way indicates the success of a camp
operation. It is more important to feel comfortable with students
and the out-of-doors than to have a formalized outdoor education.
This can often be achieved through a well-planned in-service program
that exposes the teacher to outdoor experiences which can be

91

transferred on to the students. Colleges and universities can be an
invaluable resource in helping accomplish this.
8. That teachers who are interested in camping are generally
in a minority, they are the 'better' educators, relatively speaking.
They are capable and willing to go the 'extra mile' by providing addi­
tional opportunities for creative learning. As in any profession,
these are the backbone of the system and they deserve whatever support
we can possibly provide.
9. That the role of the negotiated teaching contract, par­
ticularly the extra-duty remuneration for camping, is of greater
significance in the decline of camping than was indicated in this
study. (The lack of importance indicated on this issue might be
explained by the fact that administrative, rather than classroom,
personnel were the main respondents in this study.)
10. That the 'lack of money' has been used as an excuse for
camp program elimination to cover a number of other unrelated defi­
ciencies, such as the lack of proper planning, staffing, administra­
tive commitment, time, and evaluation. (The results of significance
testing in this study indicate the need for further study on finances,
which may be able to show that money doesn't deserve the 'cure' label
that educators have often placed on it.)
11. That students actually have far greater input into the
camp program than the building principal realizes. Students can have
an appreciable influence on teachers, parents, and administrators.

92

12. That students would generally support resident school
camping because it was a change from the normal classroom routine,
offering an exciting change of pace.
13. That camping is unique to the point that when program
evaluation has taken place, students have been a part of the evalua­
tive process. This is not the commonly accepted procedure in the
evaluation of other educational programs. This involvement might
well be a major key in the continuation of resident school camping.
14. That as the need for accountability continues to permeate
educational circles, those who have voluntarily conducted an objective
evaluation, and based their program decisions on the results, should
stand on an educationally solid foundation.
15. That the growth in family camping in the past decade may
have taken the 'edge' off the resident school camping movement, to
the point of reducing the perceived need.
For the future I see the combined support of those in the
educational community will have to become much more visable in order
for resident school camping to weather the educational storms.
Michigan can overcome the decline in school camping growth and surge
ahead. Principals, teachers, and students are ready to put their
'heart and soul' into camping and willing to do so, if they can find
the necessary backing.

CHAPTER V: FOOTNOTES
*Staley, "Research, Evaluation and Measurement," p. 15.
2
Ernest 0. Melby, cited by George W. Donaldson, School
Camping (New York: Association Press, 1952), p. 7.

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Ambry, Edward J. "An Investigation of the Administrative Problems
Related to Resident Outdoor Education Programs in Certain
Public Elementary and Secondary Schools." Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University, 1964.
Archard, Merrill H. "Recommendations for the Adminsitration of the
New Paltz State Teachers College School Camp." Ed.D. disserta­
tion, New York University, 1956.
Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredith D. Education Research. New York:
David McKay Company, Inc., 1971).
Carlson, Marcia. Correspondence to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 14, 1980.
Clarke, James M. Public School Camping. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1951.
Craddock, Arnold. "A Suggested School Camping Program for Kanawha
County Sixth Grade." Ed.D. dissertation, George Peabody
College for Teachers, 1955.
Cyphers, Vincent. "A Study to Determine the Significant Outdoor
Experiences for Elementary Teachers." Ed.D. dissertation,
Colorado State College, 1961.
. Correspondence to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 20, 1980.
Dailard, Ralph. Quoted by Wilbur Schram. Classroom Out-of-Doors.
Kalamazoo: Sequois Press/Publishers, 1969).
Dimock, Hedley S. and Hendry, Charles E. Camping and Character.
New York: Association Press, 1929.
Donaldson, George W., and Goering, Oswald. Perspectives in Outdoor
Education. DuBuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., Publishers,
1972.
Elliot, Charles W. "The Role of Camping in Social Life in a Changing
World." The Role of Camping in America, special issue of
Camping Magazine 14 (February 1942): 20-21.

95

96

Frey, Robert H. "A Job Analysis of School Camp Directors." Ph.D.
dissertation, Boston University, 1961.
Gilliland, John W. School Camping, A Frontier of Curriculum Improve­
ment. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1954.
. "Study of Administrative Factors in Establishing a Program
of School Camping." Ed.D. dissertation, New York University,
1949.
Hammerman, Donald R. "A Historical Analysis of Socio-Cultural Factors
that Influenced the Development of Camping Education." Ed.D.
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1961.
Hammerman, Donald R., and Hanmerman, William M. Outdoor Education,
A Book of Readings. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company,
1968.
. Teaching in the Outdoors. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Burgess
Publishing Company, 1973.
Hibbs, Clyde. "An Analysis of the Development and Use of Outdoor
Laboratories in Teaching Conservation in Public Schools."
PH.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1957.
Holt, Lillabelle. "Identification of the Competencies Needed by
Classroom Teachers in Programs of Resident Outdoor Education."
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio Universtiy, 1973.
Huck, Albert R., and Decker, Eugene. Environmental Respect. Safari
Clubs International Conservation Fund, Inc. Fort Collins,
Colo.: Pioneer Impressions, 1976.
Hug, John W. "Analysis of the Factors Which Influence Elementary
Teachers in the Utilization of Outdoor Instructional
Activities." D.Re. dissertation, Indiana University, 1964.
Hulett, Florence M. "A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Facili­
ties for School Camping and Outdoor Education on State Owned
Lands in Illinois." Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Oregon, 1960.
Jones, Orville E., and Swan, Malcolm D. "Parents Perceptions of
Resident Outdoor Education, Rockford Outdoor School and Taft
Field Campus, Illinois—A Comparison, Spring 1971." Journal
of Outdoor Education 6 (Winter 1972): 17-20.
Kielsmeier, Jim. "Experience as an Interdisciplinary Focus in
Alternative Programs." Journal of Outdoor Education 10
(1975): 12.

97

MacMillan, Dorothy Lou. "A Survey of the Duties and Responsibilities
of Professional School Camp Directors and Counsellors in a
Selected Group of California Camps." Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon, 1957.
Marcel!us, J. D. "A Study of Existing Public School Sponsored Camp­
ing Programs in New York State and an Analysis of Factors
Which Might Encourage the Development of Additional Camping
Programs in the Public Elementary Schools of New York."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1952.
Mason, Bernard. Camping and Education. New York: McCall Co.,
1930.
McEvoy, M. "Outdoor Education and Residential Experience." Journal
of Outdoor Education 9 (Fall 1974): 17.
McKnight, Eloise. "Contributions and Potentialities of School
Camping." Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1952.
Mel by, Ernest 0. Quoted by George W. Donaldson, School Camping.
New York: Association Press, 1952.
Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide. Lansing: Michigan
Education Directory, 1980.
Miller, Rex A. "The Development of a Positive Self-image Through
Resident Camping Experiences." The Communicator. Journal
of the New York State Outdoor Education Association 9
(Fall-Winter 1977): 49.
Mitchell, Viola A., and Crawford, Ida. Camp Counseling. Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders Co., 1961.
Mouser, Gilbert W. "A Study of Opportunities for Leadership Training
in Outdoor Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univer­
sity, 1950.
Myers, Judith L. "A Summary of Camp Leadership Research." Research
Camping and Environmental Education. Pennsylvania State
University: HPER Series No. 11, 1976.
Nelson, Neil. "Investigation of Criteria Involved in Selection and
Development of Outdoor Sites." Journal of Outdoor Education
8 (Fall 1973): 17-21.
Outdoor Education in Michigan Schools. Lansing: Michigan Department
of Education, 1970.

98

Parkman, Doris V. "Guidelines for the Conversion of an Existing
Resident Camp to an Outdoor Education Center." Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1975.
Pepper, Nathan H. "A Study of School Camping with Special Emphasis
on Program Objectives, Curriculum, Administration and
Evaluation." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Houston,
1952.
Philpott, Frank E. "School Camping in Florida: A Guide for Local
School Administrators in Planning, Establishment and
Administration of School Camping Programs." Ed.D. disserta­
tion, New York University, 1958.
Pumula, Edwin E. Education in and for the Outdoors. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education and
Recreation, National Education Association, 1963.
Reimann, Lewis C. The Successful Camp. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1958.
Rillo, Thomas J. "A Preliminary Definition of the Role of the Outdoor
Education Coordinator in Representative Public School Outdoor
Education Programs." Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, 1964.
. "Summary of Current Trends and Research in School Camping
and Outdoor Education." A paper presented at the Midwest
AAHPER Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
Rupff, Paul E. "A Comparison of Aspirations with Achievements in a
Group of Selected Michigan School Camps." Ed.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1957.
Sato, Edward H. "A Guide for the Organization and Administration of
an Outdoor Education Program in a Camp Setting for a
Metropolitan Public School System." Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1962.
Schafer, Frank G. "An Administrative Guide for Initiating Resident
Outdoor Education in the Public Schools." Ed.D. dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia, 1965.
Schramm, Wilbur. Classroom Out-of-Doors. Kalamazoo: Sequoia Press/
Publishers, 1969.
Sharp, Lloyd B. "Education and the Sumner Camp—an Experiment."
Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1930.

99

. The Bulletin, National Association of Secondary School
Principals 41 (May 1957): introduction.
Shoman, Joseph J. Outdoor Conservation Education. New York:
National Audubon Society, 1964.
Sim, Andrew L. "Factors to be Considered in Developing Resources for
Resident Centers for Outdoor/Environmental Education."
Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1975.
Smith, Julian W. Outdoor Education. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,
National Education Association, 1956.
. "Where We Have Been - What We Are - What We Will Become."
Journal of Outdoor Education 5 (Fall 1970): 3.
, et al. Outdoor Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
Staley, Frederick A. "Research, Evaluation and Measurement in Outdoor
Education." The Communicator. Journal of the New York State
Outdoor Education 11 (1980): 13.
Swift, Ernest. Outdoor Conservation Education. New York: National
Audubon Society, 1964.
Thabet, Robert A. "Outdoor Education . . . And . . . The Economic
Pinch." The Communicator. Journal of the New York Outdoor
Education Association 8 (Fall-Winter 1976): 51.
Turner, Walton G. "An Analysis to Determine Significant Administra­
tive Procedures Used in the Establishment and Operation of
Selected Resident Outdoor Laboratory School Programs."
Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967.
Ulanoff, Stanley M. "The Origin and Development of Organized Camping
in the United States 1861-1961." Ph.D. dissertation, New
York University, 1968.
Walton, Thomas W. "A Study of the Administrative Practices Used in
the Operation of Thirty Selected Part- Time School Camp Pro­
grams." Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1955.
Watson, G. "What Psychology Can We Trust?" Reading in Learning and
Human Abilities. Edited by R. R. Ripple. New York: Harper
and Row, 1964.
Wenrich, Esther. "The Staffing of Public Elementary School Camps."
Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1955.

100

Wiener, Morris. Correspondence to Ronald Z. Bacon, May 12, 1980.
Will son, Thomas. "Leader Verbal Behavior: Research and Strategies
for Change." Research Camping and Environmental Education.
Pennsylvania State University: HPER Series No. 11, 1976.

Secondary Sources
Bailey, Rupert. "Outdoor Education for Experience Enrichment."
Journal of Outdoor Education 13 (1978): 20-23.
Blatt, Mary M. "Preparing Teachers to Use Outdoor Laboratories."
Manual for Outdoor Laboratories. Danville, 111.: Interstate
Printer and Publishers, Inc.
Bristor, James L. "An Analysis of the Attitudes of Resident
Administrators Regarding Critical Problems in Resident
Camping." Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1971.
A Camping We Will Go. Battle Creek, Mich.: Battle Creek Public
Schools, 1967.
Clark, Edward E., and Born, Ted J. "Environmentalizing Your Teaching:
A Teacher Workshop Model." Journal of Outdoor Education 2
(1977): 11-14.
Clarke, James Mitchell. Public School Camping. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1951.
Donaldson, George W. School Campinq. New York: Association Press.
1952.
Doty, Richard S. The Character Dimensions of Campinq. New York:
Association Press, 1960.
Education In and For The Outdoors. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1963.
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools (CRESS). Outdoor Education—A
Selected Bibliography. Las Cruces: New Mexico State
University, 1975.

.101

Elliot, Eugene B., and Smith, Julian W. "The Michigan Program in
Action." The Bulletin, National Association of Secondary
School Principals 31 (May 1947): 60-74.
Espeseth, Robert D. "Land Between the Lakes." Journal of Outdoor
Education 13 (1979): 20-23.
"Excerpts from a Panel Discussion on Implementing Adventure Education
Programs in the Public Schools." Journal of Outdoor Education
10 (1975): 15-19.
Faith, David W. "High School Student Leaders at the Outdoor School."
Journal of Outdoor Education 5 (Spring 1971): 19-20.
Gilliland, John W. School Camping—A Frontier of Curriculum Improve­
ment. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1954.
Hammerman, Donald R., and Hammerman, William H. Teaching in the
Outdoors. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1964.
Harmo, Frank. "Camping in Teacher Education." Journal of Outdoor
Education 6 (Winter 1972): 13-16.
Huck, Albert R., and Decker, Eugene. Environmental Respect.
Tucson: Safari Club International Conservation Fund, 1976.
Hug, John W., and Wilson, Phyllis J. Curriculum Enrichment Outdoors.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965.
Irwin, Frank L. The Theory of Camping. New York: A. S. Barnes and
Company, 1950.
Johnson, David I. "A Quantitative Comparison of Environmental
Education, Conservation Education, Outdoor Education, Eco­
logical Education, Environmentalized Education, and General
Education Based Goals." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1977.
"L. B. Sharp and Julian Smith—In Memoriam." The Coirmunicator 7
(Winter 1975), 26-31.
Lewis, Charles A. The Administration of Outdoor Education Programs.
DuBuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1975.
Lewis, Charles A., and Carlson, Marcia K. Contemporary Perspectives
in Outdoor Education. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974.

102

MacMillan, Dorothy Lou. School Camping and Outdoor Education.
DuBuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1956.
Magee, Clare. "Camp Tawingo, A Private Camp Serving Public Outdoor
Education Needs in Ontario." Journal of Outdoor Education
12 (1977): 19-21.
Mand, Charles L. Outdoor Education. New York: J. Lowell Pratt and
Company, 1967.
Manley, Helen, and Drury, M. F. Education Through School Camping.
St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1952.
Masters, Hugh B. "Values of School Camping." Journal of Health,
Physical Education and Recreation 22 (January 1951): 14-15.
Mitchell, Elmer D. "The Interests of Education in Camping." The
Phi Delta Kappan 21 (December 1938): 140-142.
Nash, Jay B. "Why A School Campinq Proqram? Journal of Educational
Sociology 23 (May 1950): 500-507.
Nelson, Ray A. "Outdoor Education: A Year-Round Program." Journal
of Outdoor Education 9 (Winter 1975): 11-14.
Nie, Norman H, et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
Outdoor Education for American Youth. Committee Chairmanship of
Julian W. Smith. Washington, D.C.: American Association for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1957.
An Outdoor Education Guide for Urban Teachers of the Emotionally
Handicapped. Albany: State University of New York and State
Education Department, Division of Handicapped Children, 1974.
Research in Outdoor Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association
for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1973.
Schuette, Fred J. "Case Study of a Continuing Education Program in a
Leisure Skill: The Archery Segment of the Outdoor Education
Project of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Educa­
tion and Recreation." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1973.
Sharp, L. B. "Basic Considerations in Outdoor and Camping Education."
The Bulletin, National Association of Secondary School
Principals 31 (May 1947): 43-47.

103

Smith, Julian W. "A Decade of Progress in Outdoor Education."
Journal of Outdoor Education 1 (Fall 1966): 3-5.
, et al. Outdoor Education. 2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Squires, John L. "Standards in Public School Camping." Journal of
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 25 (September
1954(: 24-26.
Stapp, William B. "An Instructional Program Approach to Environ­
mental Education, K-12." Journal of Outdoor Education 12
(1978): 2-23.
. Integrating Conservation and Outdoor Education into the
Curriculum, K-12. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company,
1965.
Thurston, Lee M. Community School Camping. Lansing: Michigan
Department of Public Instruction, 1950.
VanDerSmissen, Betty. Research, Camping and Environmental Education.
Pennsylvania State University Health, Physical Education
and Recreation Series No. 11. College of Health, Physical
Education and Recreation, 1976.
Wiener, Morris. "Developing a Rationale for Outdoor Education."
Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965.
Williams, Lloyd David. "Julian Warner Smith: His Life, Professional
Career and Contributions to Outdoor Education." Ph.D.
dissertation, East Texas State University, 1976.
Winter Outdoor Education - Omaha Public Schools. Omaha: Omaha
Public Schools, 1975.

APPENDICES

104

APPENDIX I

NUMBER OF SCHOOL GROUPS AND STUDENTS USING
MICHIGAN DNR OUTDOOR CENTERS
SEPTEMBER THROUGH JUNE
1974-1979

105

APPENDIX I.—Number of School Groups and Students Using Michigan DNR Outdoor Centers, September
through June, 1974-1979.a
Year

Sept. Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

March April

May

June

Total

13
1247

14
1096

5
340

16
1439

20
1406

15
1283

22
1994

49
4811

23
1274

212
17,672

16
37
1332 2747

11
898

4
301

17
1327

15
1015

18
1333

24
2001

48
3590

16
980

206
15,524

12
27
1082 1849

10
952

3
278

15
1383

15
1219

16
1106

22
1808

51
3874

19
1473

190
15,024

33
14
1345 2534

9
735

4
190

11
875

14
928

11
776

20
1582

45
3368

14
906

175
13,239

14
27
1161 2018

10
930

2
171

14
1264

10
694

11
984

21
1626

45
3351

10
624

164
12,823

1974-1975
Groups
Campers

35
2782

1975-1976
Groups
Campers
1976-1977
Groups
Campers
1977-1978
Groups
Campers
1978-1979
Groups
Campers

illustrates a 23 percent decline in group use over the 5-year period, 1974-1979.

APPENDIX II

NUMBER OF SEPARATE CAMP PROGRAMS AND
PARTICIPANTS, 1975-1979

107

108

APPENDIX II.—Number of Separate Camp Programs and Participants,
1975-1979.a
Year

Number of Separate
Camp Programs

Number of
Participants

1974-75

Data Not Available

Data Not Available

1975-76

532

31,524

1976-77

483

24,635

1977-78

444

24,414

1978-79

406

23,920

Data collected by the Michigan Department of Education,
General Education Services, Office of Pre-Primary and Family
Education. Data illustrates a 24 percent decline in camp program
use over the 4-year period, 1975-1979.

APPENDIX III
MICHIGAN OUTDOOR CENTERS

109

APPENDIX III
MICHIGAN OUTDOOR CENTERS

WELLS

OCQUEOC

OUTDOOR CENTERS

UDIN6TON

SLEEPER

PICKEREL

BLOOMER N0.I3

LAKE

CHIEF NOONDAY
*
LONG LAKE
CEDAR LAKE
•
MILL LAKE
ISLAND LAKE
HAYES

110

HURON RIVER
PELLETIER

APPENDIX IV
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
OUTDOOR CENTERS - CAPACITY

111

112

APPENDIX IV.—Michigan Department of Natural Resources Outdoor
Centers - Capacity.
Center
1. Bloomer*

Maximum Capacity
40

2. Cedar Lake

120

3. Chief Noonday

120

4. Hayes*

44

5. Island Lake

140

6. Long Lake

120

7. Ludington*

72

8. Mill Lake

140

9. Ocqueoc Lake

140

10. Pelletier
11. Pickeral Lake*

100
26

12. Proud Lake

130

13. Sleeper

120

14. Wells*

82

15. Wilderness*

75

APPENDIX V

NUMBER OF CAMP PROGRAMS MEETING CRITERIA,
UTILIZING DNR OUTDOOR CENTERS WHICH
ACCOMMODATE 85 OR MORE CAMPERS

113

114

APPENDIX V.—Number of Camp Programs Meeting Criteria, Utilizing
DNR Outdoor Centers which Accommodate 85 or More
Campers.
19741975

19751976

19761977

19771978

19781979

9

14

10

15

13

October

30

25

18

28

19

November

12

10

10

6

10

December

3

3

3

3

2

January

14

14

15

11

14

February

16

10

12

12

9

March

12

14

12

10

11

April

20

17

16

16

17

May

28

31

29

29

30

June

13

9

11

9

5

Total

158

147

136

139

130

September

GRAND
TOTAL: 710

APPENDIX VI
DATA CARD

115

APPENDIX VI: DATA CARD

KEY:
1- 3 = number assigned
each school
building
4 = grade level
5 = distance from
camp, 50 miles
6 =

7,12
17,22
27
8- 9
13-14
18-19
23-24
28-29

urban, suburban
or rural
district

checked if
camped that year

1-3

School
I.D.

4

Level

5

> <

6

ti: SIR:

7

74-75

8-9

Month

10-11

Camp

10-11

o
5S

12

75-76

13-14

Month

15-16

Camp

17

76-77

18-19

Month

20-21

Camp

22

month Center
used

o
H
>
n
H
>
n)
o
a pd
to !»
m
to
CO

in

o

z

!

77-78 |

23-24

Month

25-26

Camp

27

78-79

28-29

Month

30-31

Camp

j

15-16
20-21

25-26
30-31

|
DNR Outdoor
Center used

4

Data card system used to collect information on the 710 residential
school camping programs using DNR Outdoor Centers between 1974 and
1979, September through June.
116

APPENDIX VII

COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT
VALIDATION

117

OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS •

OKEMOS, MICHIGAN 48864

OFFICE OF THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION COORDINATOR

•

PHONE 349-9440

May 6, 1980

Dear
Over the past fourteen years I have been involved in conducting school camp
operations in a number of Michigan school districts. The past five years this
once steadily increasing movement has experienced an apparent decline. As
you well know, many resources, both fiscal and personnel, are expended by
a school district when conducting a resident camping program. I am conduct­
ing a study to identify some common factors found in those districts who con­
tinue their camping programs and similarly for those who have discontinued.
This study will eventually be used to partially fulfill the requirements for a
Ph.D. degree in Education from Michigan State University.
In order to research these factors, I have developed a questionnaire to admin­
ister to a selected number of school districts who are/have been involved in
residential camping. This questionnaire concentrates upon the general areas
of administration, evaluation, experience, finances, program planning, and
operation. I recognize that there are other areas such as public relations,
facilities, food services, health and safety and transportation, which might
have some effect; but that I have not chosen due to the scope of my study,
except within my thesis context.
The reason I am writing to you is that I need your input/opinions on my
questionnaire. You are one of five people I am asking to assist me in making
certain that the questions asked are appropriate to my intent and for the
validation of my instrument. I would like to have you ask yourself, as you
are reading through these questions, whether there are any glaring areas
which I have inadvertently omitted. When one is so close to such a topic,
there is a tendency to "fail to see the forest for the trees." Enclosed is a
copy of my proposal which might illustrate in greater detail exactly what
'trees' I am looking at.
Inasmuch as I need to get this instrument out and back before the end of
this school year, I would appreciate your prompt review of the questions.
Please find enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope so as to further
expedite this process.
I want to thank you for talking your time to help me with this process. I
certainly "owe" you one and urge you to 'collect' whenever you so desire.
Yours truly,

Ronald Z. Bacon, Coordinator
Community Education

APPENDIX VIII
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

119

July 7, 1980

Dear
Over the past fourteen years I have been involved in conducting school
camp operations in a number of Michigan school districts. The past five
years this once steadily-increasing movement has experienced an apparent
decline. As you well know, there are many resources, both fiscal and
personnel, expended by a school district when conducting a resident camping
program. I am conducting a study to look for some common factors found
in those districts which continue their camping programs and similarly for
those which have discontinued. This study will eventually be used to par­
tially fulfill the requirements for a PhD degree in Education from Mich­
igan State University.
According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources records, your dis­
trict has been using one of their Outdoor Centers.
Similarly, you are
the contact person on record and thus this questionnaire is being sent to
you. If, per chance, you are not the actual camp director/facilitator,
I would greatly appreciate your passing this on to the appropriate person
for I am only surveying forty (40) districts like yours and do indeed
need responses from all forty.
Find enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope so as to expedite your
completed questionnaire which I would like returned by August 10 as I need
to have all the responses for this past school year. Your questionnaire
is numbered solely for record keeping purpose. All information will be
kept in the strictest confidence.
I recognize this is summer vacation time for many school people and
really appreciate your taking the time to assist me with this task.
Thanks again.

Very truly yours,

Ronald Z. Bacon, Coordinator
Community Education

RZB:mc

Enclosure

NUMBER

1.

Importance
No

Little
Importance

Undecided

How important is it that:

Important

Very
Important

When making the decision on continuance of your school districts residential camping program,
one has to address a number of important factors including evaluation, finance, staff, plan­
ning and operation, etc.
Using the experience in your districts camp program, please rate
the degree of importance of the items listed below when you make that judgement on the con­
tinuation/or termination of camping.
Please mark ( X ) only one item for each sentence stem.

Camp has a designated camp director.

2.

Board of Education openly supports the camp program.

3.

School community openly supports the camping program.

4.

Superintendent of Schools openly supports the camping program.

5.

Camp director is a school administrator.

6.

Camp program

7.

Camp director is a classroom teacher.

8.

Building principal participates in the camp program.

9.

Administrative support is necessary to have a camping program.

10.

Students take active roles in planning

11.

Building principal takes an active role in planning

12.

Teaching (camp) staff takes an active role

13.

Community/parents take an active role in planning

14.

A standard, system-wide camp curriculum

15.

Community/parents are utilized as counsellors for supervising sCudentsj
at camp.
'

is openly supported

by the

building principal.
1
1
;
i

the camp program.

;

the c a m p p r o g r a m .

,

is followed.

Community/parents are utilized as resource staff in

17.

Teaching (camp) staff members conduct classes when at camp.

18.

The camping program is a regular part of the Board of Educat ion
approved curriculum.

19.

The building principal attends camp.

20.

The school district is responsible for
part of the school camp expenses.

the camp program. \
|
f

the complete funding of all or j
j
l.

21.

Students are involved in fund

22.

Financial considerations are a major factor in the continuation of
your camp program.

23.

Teaching (camp) staff receive remuneration for their camp activities
in addition to their basic salaries.

24.

Students/parents are responsible for financing the majority of
camp expenses (food & lodging).

raising projects to help defer camp costs!
;
'
i.

j

their[
|

25.

Resource personnel are readily available.

26.

Camping program is integrated into the everyday classroom curriculum, j

27.

Camping teacher has had

28.

Student has had previous school camping experience.

29.

Student

30.

Camping teacher has had formal (college/university) training in out­
door education.

31.

Camping teacher is a person oriented to the out-of-doors.

32.

Camping teacher has received in-service training in outdo or/environmental education.

33.

School district/school has an in-service program

previous school camping experience.

has had previous camping experience (family, scouts).

for teachers.

1
1

the camp p r o g r a n

16.

j
1

the camp program.

in planning

i
»
1

34.

35.

Do you chink it is important that the camping program is formally evaluated on
basis?
Yes
No
If so, who should be responsible for this evaluation?

yearly

Parents of participating student
camper s

Camp staff (teachers, adult
counsellors & resource staff)

Building principal

Students who camped

Independent reseachers

Other, please list

What share of the total camp costs, per student, does your district
transportation?

less than 20%

40% to 60%

20% to 40%

60% to 80%
80% to

36.

a

cover, including

100%

What is the average size of one of your school camp groups?

less than 5 0 students
50 to 75 students

75 to 100 students
100 to 125 students
125 or more students

37.

What

is your school building population
less than 200 students
2 0 0 to

(average if more than one

building camps)?

300 to 400 students

3 0 0 students

400 to 500 students
500 or more students

38.

39.

40.

41.

What gradc(s) art

participating in your camping program?

4th Grade

7th Grade

5th Gradt

8th Grade

6th Grade

Other or combination, please list

Please rank, 1 thru 5, who should be responsible for determining the program at camp.
Participating teachers

Board of

Camping students

Building principal

Parents of camping students

Other, please list

In general terms, what percent of your
ries
of yearly family income?

camping students would

Education

come from these catego­

X less than $10,000/year

% $25,000 to $40,000/year

% $10,000 to $25 ,000/year

% $40,000 or more per year

Please indicate what position you presently occupy.
Classroom teacher

Building principal

Outdoor/environmental education
dire c tor

Other, please specify

42.

In

brief, what are the major

If you would like a copy of
below.
Thank you.

reasons

your camping program is/isn't continuing?

the summary of this data, please give me your current address

NAME:

ADDRESS
it

Street

City

State

Zip

APPENDIX IX
QUESTIONS ASSIGNED TO SCALES

124

APPENDIX IX
QUESTIONS ASSIGNED TO SCALES
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
2. Board of Education openly supports the camp program.
4. Superintendent of Schools openly supports the camping
program.
6. Camp program is openly supported by the building principal.
8. Building principal participates in the camp program.
9. Administrative support is necessary to have a camping
program.
11. Building principal takes an active role in planning the
camp program.
19. The building principal attends camp.
20. The school district is responsible for the complete
funding of all or part of the school camp expenses.
22. Financial considerations are a major factor in the continu­
ation of your camp program.
33. School district/school has an in-service program for teachers.
TEACHER INVOLVEMENT
7. Camp director is a classroom teacher. (DELETED)
12. Teaching (camp) staff takes an active role in planning the
camp program.
17. Teaching (camp) staff members conduct classes when at camp.
27. Camping teacher has had previous school camping experience.
30. Camping teacher has had formal (college/university)
training in outdoor education.
31. Camping teacher is a person oriented to the out-of-doors.
32. Camping teacher has received in-service training in
outdoor/environmental education.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
3. School community openly supports the camping program.
13. Community/parents take an active role in planning the camp
program.
15. Community/parents are utilized as counsellors for super­
vising students at camp.
125

126

continued.
16. Community/parents are utilized as resource staff in the
camp program.
25. Resource personnel are readily available. (DELETED)
STUDENT INVOLVEMENT
10. Students take active roles in planning the camp program.
24. Students/parents are responsible for financing the majority
of their camp expenses (food and lodging). (DELETED)
28. Student has had previous school camping experience.
29. Student has had previous camping experience (family,
scouts).
CURRICULUM
14. A standard, system-wide camp curriculum is followed.
18. The camping program is a regular part of the Board of
Education approved curriculum
26. Camping program is integrated into the everyday classroom
curriculum. (DELETED)
FINANCES
21. Students are involved in fund raising projects to help
defer camp costs.
22. Financial considerations are a major factor in the con­
tinuation of your school camp program.
23. Teaching (camp) staff receive remuneration for their camp
activities in addition to their basic salaries.
24. Students/parents are responsible for financing the
majority of their camp expenses (food and lodging).

APPENDIX X

MEAN RESPONSE FOR VARIABLES
ACCORDING TO SCALES

127

APPENDIX X.—Mean Response for Variables according to Scales.
Likert Scale

Question
Number

\

\

Question

Mean
Response
Individual
Question

Mean
Response
For Scale

V21
V22
V23
V24

Students Involved fund raising
Finances factor continuation camp
Teaching staff remuneration
Students/parents finance major camp

2.556
2.204
3.185
1.981

2.346

V14
V18

Standard camp curriculum
Camp program part Board curriculum

2.833
1.815

2.611

V10
V28
V29

Students active planning program
Student previous school camp experience
Student previous camp experience

2.037
4.537
4,593

3.141

V3
V13
V15
V16

School conmunity openly supports
Community/parents active planning
Community/parents utilized counsellors
Community/parents utilized resource staff

1.296
3.222
2.900
2.778

2.349

V12
V17
V27
V30
V31
V32

Teacher (camp) staff active camp planning
Teacher (camp) staff conducts classes
Camp teacher previous camp experience
Camp teacher formal training outdoor education
Camp teacher oriented out-of-doors
Camp teacher received in-service

1.185
1.167
2.963
3.537
2.537
2.630

2.581

V2
V4
V6
V8
V9
Vll
V19
V20
V33

Board openly supports
Superintendent openly supports
Camp openly supported by principal
Building principal participated at camp
Administration support necessary
Principal active planning program
Building principal attends camp
District responsible funding camp
School district in-service

1.463
1.556
1.204
2.185
1.333
2.352
2.407
3.278
2.833

1.896

128