reading

   For your course project, you will deconstruct a published research study of your choosing in order to demonstrate your understanding of the elements of research methods and good research design. You will be working with this study throughout the remainder of the course, so choose a research study from the academic literature in your field on either a topic of interest to you or a topic on which you might be interested in doing further research. Choose a study that is either quantitative or qualitative. The study should meet the following criteria:It does not use mixed methodology.It is a primary research study. Studies detailing meta-analyses, theoretical proposals, or opinion papers are not appropriate for this project. It must report on original research conducted using human participants. It must be reported in an article that is part of the research literature of your field. It must have been published in the last 5to7 years. Based on your assignment, your instructor will determine if the study you selected is appropriate for use in the remaining assignments in the course. You are required to provide the following to complete this assignment:

The article reference in APA format. The persistent link to the article. A short paragraph explaining your reasons for indicating the study is part of the research literature of your field. A short paragraph explaining your reasons for identifying the research as qualitative or quantitative

Journal of Experiential Education
2015, Vol. 38(4) 324 –338

© The Authors 2015
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1053825915578914

jee.sagepub.com

Article

Enhancing Youth Outcomes
and Organizational Practices
Through a Camp-Based
Reading Program

Barry A. Garst1 and Lance W. Ozier2

Abstract
Many children experience summer learning loss during the summer as measured
by grade-level equivalents on standardized tests. Camp-based reading programs
are a promising strategy to reduce summer learning loss. Situated within a positive
youth development (PYD) theoretical approach, this study explored the efficacy
of a U.S. camp-based reading program called Explore 30 and examined promising
practices for reading interventions in camps as a mechanism for enhancing youth
reading outcomes. Youth and director surveys were used to collect quantitative and
qualitative data about program impacts. Approximately 70% of participants read for
at least 30 min each day. A paired-samples t test found a significant difference (in
the positive direction) in feelings about reading from pretest (M = 2.09, SD = 1.20)
to posttest (M = 1.89, SD = 1.08), t(590) = 5.96, p < .001. Findings suggest that the program was an appropriate model for enhancing camp organizational capacity for summer reading. Implications for practice and recommendations for research are addressed.

Keywords
reading, positive youth development, summer learning, enjoyment, camp

Introduction

Many children experience summer learning loss, which means they lose academic
skills as measured by grade-level equivalents on standardized tests. Because of

1Clemson University, SC, USA
2Institute for Student Achievement, New York City, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Barry A. Garst, Associate Professor, Youth Development Leadership, Department of Parks, Recreation,
and Tourism Management, Clemson University, 414 Edwards Hall, Clemson, SC 29631, USA.
Email: bgarst@clemson.edu

578914 JEEXXX10.1177/1053825915578914Journal of Experiential EducationGarst and Ozier
research-article2015

mailto:bgarst@clemson.edu

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1053825915578914&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-03-26

Garst and Ozier 325

summer learning loss, children’s test scores are lower when they return to school in the
fall than when they left school in the spring (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, &
Greathouse, 1996; Downey, von Hippel, & Broh, 2004; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson,
2000). Summer learning loss impacts all youth, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or IQ.

Reading books is the best predictor of reading achievement, reading comprehen-
sion, vocabulary, and reading speed (Anderson, Fielding, & Wilson, 1988; Stanovich
& Cunningham, 1993). Unfortunately, reading is declining in America, and this decline
has civic, social, cultural, and economic implications (National Endowment for the
Arts, 2010). Reading skills are important for youth in a variety of ways. As Arend and
Rogers (2013) noted, “In an age where children are categorized based on their perfor-
mance on reading and writing measures, there are high stakes for literacy develop-
ment. Imagine the difference in self-concept for a child labeled ‘struggling’ and one
labeled as ‘above grade-level’” (p. 41). Camp-based reading programs may provide an
opportunity to reduce summer learning loss by exposing youth to academic enrich-
ment in an experiential setting (Dewey, 1938). Although summer reading programs in
U.S. camps are common, few studies of camp-based reading programs have been con-
ducted. This study examined the impact of a camp-based reading program on youth
reading outcomes.

Developmental Outcomes of Camp Experiences

For more than 150 years, American summer camps have thrived as sites for both rec-
reational and educational enrichment. Defined as “organized experiences in group liv-
ing in the outdoors that use trained leaders to accomplish intentional goals” (Henderson,
Bialeschki, & James, 2007, p. 755), camp has evolved over time through four distinct
stages, including the Recreational Stage (1860-1920), the Educational Stage (1920-
1950), the Social Orientation and Responsibility Stage (1950-1970), and the New
Directions Stage (1970-present; James, 2009). Yet despite evolving priorities, even the
earliest camp directors recognized the educational value of the summer camp experi-
ence (Paris, 2008).

The developmental outcomes of the camp experience for young people are well
documented (Bialeschki, Henderson, & James, 2007; Garst & Bruce, 2003; Thurber,
Scanlin, Scheuler, & Henderson, 2007). The first large-scale study of U.S. camps was
the American Camp Association’s (ACA; 2005) National Youth Development
Outcomes study, through which 5,000 youth, staff, and parents from a representative
national sample of camps were asked about the ways youth benefited from the camp
experience. Results from this study indicated that campers experienced growth in a
variety of areas, including self-esteem, peer relationships, independence, adventure
and exploration, leadership, environmental awareness, friendship skills, values and
decisions, social comfort, and spirituality.

Other research, influenced by the Community Action Framework for Positive
Youth Development proposed by Gambone, Klem, and Connell (2002) and the work
of Eccles and Gootman (2002), has revealed that camp experiences provide many of
the supports and opportunities necessary for positive youth development (PYD; ACA,

326 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

2006), including supportive relationships, safety, youth involvement, and skill build-
ing. The provision of these developmental benefits and contextual supports and oppor-
tunities suggests that camp experiences provide young people with the proper setting
for learning, which could be called learning readiness. In other words, through camp
experiences (and other experiences that provide the supports and opportunities for
PYD), young people experience a readiness for learning because they are surrounded
by caring adults, they feel emotionally and physically safe, are involved in hands-on
activities that facilitate adventure, exploration, and leadership, and thus are prepared
for impactful learning engagement. As Garst, Browne, and Bialeschki (2011) posited,
“Opportunities foster positive development by offering novel, challenging, and engag-
ing experiences that effectively open the learning pathways of young people” (p. 74).
In fact, in a comprehensive review of learning outside the classroom titled
Supplementary Education: The Hidden Curriculum of High Academic Achievement,
Gordon, Bridglall, and Meroe (2005) suggested that out-of-school time, experiences
such as those provided by camps, create a number of positive social and psychological
conditions that prepare young people for academic learning when youth return to
school after summer vacation.

Summer Learning Loss

Education researchers for over a century have been interested in a seasonal approach
to learning that seeks to determine whether or not there are months during the year
when children are more likely to make greater academic gains and progress (White,
1906). Across much of the nation, excluding those on a “year-round calendar,” school
systems follow a traditional agrarian calendar, originally created to allow for farming
and labor rather than modern vacation and leisure. Thus, the potential for summer
months as a period during which overall academic achievement is either enhanced or
reduced has received increasing scrutiny.

Research suggests that many children experience summer learning loss during the
summer months, which means they forget the equivalent of up to 2 months of aca-
demic content as measured by grade-level equivalents on standardized tests. Because
of this “summer slide,” children’s test scores are lower when they return to school in
the fall than when they left school in the spring (Downey et al., 2004; Entwisle et al.,
2000). The cumulative effect of summer learning loss is striking. On average, students
generally lose more than 2½ months of grade-level equivalency in mathematical com-
putation skills and almost 2 months of reading achievement for low-income students.
In addition, studies reveal that the greatest areas of summer loss for all students,
regardless of socioeconomic status, are in factual or procedural knowledge (Cooper
et al., 1996). Therefore, summer learning loss impacts all youth, regardless of gender,
ethnicity, or IQ.

Summer Reading Programs

Providing youth with summer reading opportunities can help them develop a range of
reading skills. For example, reading practice improves word recognition, builds

Garst and Ozier 327

vocabulary, and improves reading fluency and comprehension. Reading can also be an
impactful source of world knowledge and a way for youth to develop an understanding
of complex language syntax and grammar (Locke, 1988). The number of minutes
spent reading during out-of-school time, even if only a small amount, correlates posi-
tively with reading achievement (Anderson et al., 1988).

Summer reading programs (SRPs), a staple for most public libraries and some
museums since the turn of the century, are commonplace. A 2001 survey of
Pennsylvania public libraries found that children who attended SRPs read on a higher
level than those who did not attend, and participants also spent more time reading than
nonparticipants. Furthermore, teachers of SRP participants reported that 31% main-
tained or improved their reading skills compared with 5% of nonparticipants (Celano
& Neuman, 2001).

One of the most highly regarded SRPs is the California Reading Outcomes Initiative
(California Library Association, 2013), cited by the American Library Association as
a summer reading best practice. Based on California Library Association survey data
collected during the summer of 2013 from 9,996 children, teens, and adults in 15
library jurisdictions found that the majority of youth program participants enjoyed the
summer reading program (90%), shared books and talked about books they read
(61%), and planned to come back to the library after the summer (86%).

Camp-Based Reading Programs

For over a century, reading has been a common activity in U.S. summer camps (Coale,
1914). In 2011, the ACA conducted an environmental scan of camp-based reading
programs and found that approximately 220 ACA camps were providing camp reading
programs reaching more than 360,000 youth across 36 states (Garst, Morgan, &
Bialeschki, 2011). Because camp experiences are an experiential youth development
setting that supports learning to engage a large number of youth during the summer
months, camp-based reading programs (CRPs) may be an effective strategy to provide
youth with academic and reading engagement. As previously noted, reading books is
an excellent predictor of reading achievement, and a number of CRPs have targeted
time spent reading and attitudes toward reading as primary program goals (Arend &
Rogers, 2013; Garst, Morgan, & Bialeschki, 2011).

Few CRP-related studies have been published, and those that have been published
examined different camp models serving different camp populations. Van Westervelt,
Johnson, Westervelt, and Murrill (1998) examined the impact of a 6-week summer
camp on self-concept and reading/writing skills of dyslexic students aged 9 to 14 years
from public, private, and specialized private schools. Youth attending camp improved
significantly in phonetic reading skills but not reading speed. Schacter and Jo (2005)
used an experimental design to examine the outcomes of the Read to Achieve pro-
gram, a 7-week literacy promotion day camp for first-grade students from low-income
families. In this program, 2 hr of camp time each day were devoted to reading activi-
ties, and the remainder of each day was devoted to typical camp activities. Reading
comprehension scores for program participants were 41% higher 3 months following

328 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

the program than the scores for the control group. Program participants also reported
increased time spent reading books. A randomized field trial approach was used by
Borman, Goetz, and Dowling (2009) to examine the impact of a 6-week summer day
camp on summer learning outcomes of 93 treatment and 35 control students from
high-poverty schools in Baltimore, Maryland, using the Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA). Practical and significant treatment effects were found.

Arend and Rogers (2013) developed a CRP as part of a 26-day resident camp tar-
geting sixth-grade youth and used the Elementary Reading Attitude Scale (ERAS) by
McKenna and Kear (1990) to measure attitudes toward reading. In that program, youth
were engaged in a combination of reading and writing activities for 75 min on most
days. The researchers found significant differences in participants’ attitudes toward
recreational and academic reading for both male and female youth. Male youth expe-
rienced the greatest amount of attitude change toward reading (p < .001) from pretest and posttest.

Theoretical Context

This study was situated within a PYD theoretical approach and informed by experien-
tial education practices. Across two decades of research, the field of youth develop-
ment has experienced a shift in practice from single issue programs that sought to
ameliorate problem behaviors to more comprehensive strategies that recognize and
emphasize the needs and competencies inherent in all youth (Barcelona & Quinn,
2011). A PYD approach acknowledges that all youth have strengths and that youth will
develop in positive ways when their strengths are aligned with appropriate supports
and opportunities (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Semsa, 2006). Lerner (2004) identi-
fied the “Big Three” characteristics of PYD programs as (a) positive and sustained
adult-youth relations, (b) life-skill-building activities, and (c) opportunities for youth
participation in and leadership of valued family, school, and community activities. In
this study, skill-building experiences provided to youth through camp-based reading
along with the support of caring adult staff were viewed to be one such opportunity to
build PYD. Situating this camp-based reading study within a PYD approach was sup-
ported by the previously mentioned research on camp experiences that suggested that
such experiences provide many of the supports and opportunities necessary for PYD
(ACA, 2006), including supportive relationships, safety, youth involvement, and skill
building.

Reading in the camp setting corresponds with Conrad and Hedin’s (1982) defini-
tion of experiential education as that which is

offered as an integral part of the general school curriculum, but taking place outside of
the conventional classroom, where students are in new roles featuring significant tasks
with real consequences, and where the emphasis is on learning by doing with associated
reflection. (p. 58)

The results from the formal measures used in their study demonstrated that experi-
ential programs do have a positive impact on the psychological, social, and intellectual

Garst and Ozier 329

development of the student participants consistent with the findings of this study.
Furthermore, Gass, Gillis, and Russell (2012) described several principles of experi-
ential education practice that inform a theoretical framework for CRPs, including the
following:

•• Experiences are structured to require the learner to take initiative, make deci-
sions, and be accountable for results.

•• Learners are engaged intellectually, emotionally, socially, soulfully, and/or
physically. This involvement produces a perception that the learning task is
authentic.

•• The results of the learning are personal and form the basis for future experience
and learning.

Reading was also recognized as a common leisure activity for children (Nippold,
Duthie, & Larsen, 2005). Leisure activities, settings, and experiences have need-
satisfying properties that impact a person’s interest in, and satisfaction with, the leisure
activity (Mannell, 1999). Attitudes and feelings toward reading can cause a young
person to approach or avoid reading situations, so understanding specific motivations
for reading is important. Motivations for leisure reading vary, and may include enjoy-
ment or learning (Gibson & Levin, 1975), but the most important predictor of the
amount one reads is enjoyment (Stokmans, 1999), even when sociodemographic vari-
ables and the amount of spare time are controlled for.

Purpose

This study explored the efficacy of a U.S. camp-based reading program called Explore
30 and examined promising practices for reading interventions in camps as a mecha-
nism for enhancing youth reading outcomes. Specifically, it was hypothesized as
follows:

Hypothesis 1: Participating youth would show gains in reading enjoyment.
Hypothesis 2: Participating organizations would learn effective practices for deliv-
ering a camp reading program.

Method

Program and Participants

The ACA is a national 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that serves as the leading
nonprofit working to enrich lives through the camp experience, providing research,
educational resources, and technical assistance to camp and youth development pro-
fessionals. In 2011, 218 day and resident camps enrolled to participate in the ACA’s
Explore 30 Camp Reading Program. Participating camps agreed to integrate Explore
30 either formally or informally into their camp program, and provide youth with at

330 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

least 30 min of reading time per day for each day of the camp session. Thirty minutes
was established as the reading goal based on research findings that 30 min of daily
reading was effective in producing positive outcomes in reading proficiency (Ohio
Department of Education, 2000; Wright, 1992).

Explore 30 provided campers with experiential education opportunities that encour-
aged taking initiative, making decisions, and accountability for results. Camps were
invited to adapt the Explore 30 program to accommodate the various needs of indi-
vidual camps, resulting in a range of formal and informal reading practices. For
instance, some camps scheduled regular library programs led by a staff member to
introduce book selection techniques to campers, practice read-alouds, and encourage
book discussions with peers. Other camps instituted a bedtime reading ritual during
which counselors read a chapter book to a tent or cabin of campers over the course of
several evenings. Many camps used the “drop everything and read” (DEAR) strategy
during rest hour or free time, whereas other camps organized “education clubs” to
formally link reading experiences to specific learning outcomes in nature, art, or ath-
letics. To support the various initiatives, ACA provided a variety of resources to
Explore 30 camps, including ideas for integrating reading in camp, staff checklist for
reading aloud to campers, and reading scaffolding guide for staff. To encourage
accountability, ACA provided camps with optional certificates of achievement, camper
reading logs, and group reading logs. Table 1 shows the Explore 30 logic model, which
includes the goals, inputs, outputs, and the targeted short- and long-term program
outcomes.

Instrumentation

Surveys were used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. First, camp direc-
tors were required to complete an “Organizational Profile Survey” when they enrolled
in the program. Second, youth campers completed a “Camper Survey” on the first
and last days of the camp session. Third, camp directors completed a web-based
“Director Survey” after the end of the camp session. The Organizational Profile
Survey asked questions related to camp name, camp type, number of campers
expected to be served, demographics of campers served, description of reading pro-
grams currently provided at the camp (if applicable), and reading program needs of
the camp. The Camper Survey, administered in a pretest and posttest design, was a
one-page printed self-report survey that measured number of minutes read each day,
perceptions of reading (reading interest, reading enjoyment), and components of the
program that campers enjoyed the most/least. The Director Survey included both
quantitative and qualitative questions related to the number of minutes read, percep-
tions of camper change in reading interest attributed to Explore 30, and perceptions
of the organizational impact of Explore 30 involvement. Responses to questions on
the Director Survey, such as those related to their perceptions of camper reading
interest, were influenced by director and staff observations of campers and their inter-
actions and conversations with campers.

331

T
a
b

le
1

.

Ex

pl
o
re

3
0

Pr

o
gr

am
E

va
lu

at
io

n
Lo

gi
c

M
o
de

l.

G
o
al

s
In

pu
ts

O
ut

pu
ts

Sh

o
rt

-t
er

m
o

ut
co

m
es

Lo
ng

-t
er
m
o
ut
co
m
es

In
cr

ea
se

d

o
rg

an
iz

at
io

na
l

ca
pa

ci
ty

t
o
p

ro
vi

de
c

am
p-

ba
se

d

re

ad
in

g

pr

o
gr

am
s.

In
cr
ea
se
d
re
ad
in

g

en

jo
ym

en
t

an
d

en
ga

ge
m

en
t

am
o
ng

yo

ut
h

ca
m

pe
rs

p
ar

ti
ci

pa

ti
ng

in

E
xp

lo
re

3
0.

C
am

ps
e

nr
o
lle

d
in

Ex
pl
o
re
3
0
an
d

ad
vo

ca
ti
ng

f

o
r

su
m

m
er

r
ea

di
ng

.
A

cc
es

s
to

E
xp
lo
re
3
0

W
eb

p
o
rt

al
r

ea
di

ng

re
so

ur
ce

s.
Y

o
ut

h
in

vo
lv

ed
in

t
he

pr
o
gr

am
.

St
af

f
tr

ai
ne

d
to

s
up

po
rt

re
ad
in

g
ex

pe
ri

en
ce

s.
B

o

o
ks

a
nd

o
th

er

re
ad

in
g

m
at

er
ia

ls
.

Pa
rt

ne
rs

w
ho

p
ro

vi
de

re

se
ar

ch
s

up
po

rt

m
at
er
ia
ls
.

N
um

be
r

o
f
ca

m
ps

pa

rt
ic

ip
at

in
g

in
E

xp
lo

re

30
.

N
um
be
r
o
f
ca
m
ps

ad

vo
ca

ti
ng
f
o
r

th
e

im
po

rt
an

ce
o

f
re

ad
in

g
to

ad

dr
es

s
su

m
m

er
le

ar
ni

ng

lo
ss

.
N

um
be

r
o
f
yo

ut
h

pa
rt

ic
ip

at
in

g
at

e
ac

h
ca

m
p.

N
um
be
r

o
f
bo

o
ks
a
nd

o
th

er
r

ea
di

ng
m

at
er

ia
ls

av

ai
la

bl
e

to
y

o
ut

h.
N

um
be

r
o
f
pa

rt
ne

rs
w

ho

pr
o
vi

de
d

re
ad
in
g

su
pp

o
rt

m

at
er
ia
ls

.
Pr

o
m

is
in

g
pr

ac
ti
ce

s
le

ar
ne

d
o
r

ad
o
pt

ed
a

t
ea

ch
c

am
p.

C
am

ps
w

ill
e

xp
er

ie
nc

e
in

cr
ea

se
d

ca
pa
ci
ty

t
o

de
liv

er
a

c
am

p-
ba

se
d
re
ad
in
g

pr
o
gr

am
.
C
am
ps
w

ill
le

ar
n

o
r
ad
o
pt

pr
o
m
is
in
g
pr
ac
ti
ce

s
fo

r
yo

ut
h

lit
er

ac
y

an
d
re
ad

in
g.

Y
o
ut

h
w

ill
r

ep
o
rt

gr

ea
te

r
in

te
re

st
in

, a
nd

en
jo
ym
en
t

w
it
h,

r
ea
di
ng

.

C
am
ps
w

ill
b

e
po

si
ti
o
ne

d
as

y
o
ut

h
lit

er
ac

y
ad

vo
ca

te
s.

Y
o
ut
h
w
ill
b

e
be

tt
er

pr

ep
ar

ed
t

o
e

nt
er

sc

ho
o
l w

it
h

lo
w

er

le
ve

ls
o

f
su

m
m
er

le
ar

ni
ng

lo
ss

a
ft

er

pa
rt
ic
ip
at
in

g
in

re
ad
in

g
th

ro
ug

h
Ex

pl
o
re
3
0.

So
ur

ce
. R

ep
ro

du
ce

d
fr

o
m

G
ar

st
, M

o
rg

an
, a

nd
B

ia
le

sc
hk

i (
20

11
).

332 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

Data Analysis

The quantitative data from both the director and camper surveys were analyzed with
IBM SPSS descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from the surveys were coded and
grouped by emergent themes. These themes were further analyzed to determine pat-
terns and conceptual consistency in the responses (Patton, 2002).

Results

Camp directors from 49 (n = 49) of the 218 camps completed the Explore 30 Director
Survey (22% response rate). The majority of directors who completed the survey were
administrators/directors (59.1%), followed by program managers/directors (34.1%)
and instructional staff (6.8%). A large percentage (45.6%) of camps were affiliated
with an agency, followed by independent for-profit camps (24.6%), independent not-
for-profit camps (14%), religious camps (8.8%), municipal or government camps
(7%), and 1.6% identified as other. Directors identified that they served 13,000 youth
through Explore 30 from a range of economic levels. Just over 12% of participants
were reported to be at poverty level, 24% were low income, 59% were middle income,
and the remaining participants were considered high income.

Youth from a convenience sample of 7 camps completed the Explore 30 Camper
Survey (N = 591). These campers were predominantly female (n = 313, 53%) and their
ages ranged from 3 to 18 years (M age = 9.68). Campers’ grade level was between
preschool and 12th grade. Nearly 12% were in pre-K to kindergarten, 58% of the
campers were in elementary school, 18% were in middle school, and 12% were in high
school.

Directors and campers reported the number of minutes that campers read each day
at camp. Both directors and campers reported that just over 30% of campers read for
15 min each day. Nearly 50% of directors reported that campers read for approxi-
mately 30 min each day, whereas campers’ self-report was slightly smaller at 42%. In
addition, directors reported that 11% of campers read for 45 min daily, whereas camp-
ers’ self-report was slightly higher at 15%. More than 7% of directors, compared with
13% from the camper survey, reported reading for 1 hr or more each day. Comparing
the data across campers and directors suggests that approximately 70% of youth par-
ticipating in Explore 30 read for at least 30 min or more each day of their camp
session.

Directors also reported on campers’ reading interest. On a scale of 1 to 5, where
1 = false and 5 = true, directors indicated that campers were more likely to read during
free time (3.90) and more interested in reading (3.78) because of Explore 30. In addi-
tion, campers were asked about their feelings toward reading prior to and after partici-
pating in Explore 30. A paired-samples t test was used to compare the means on
campers’ feelings about reading where 1 = “loved to read” and 5 = “hated reading.”
There was a significant difference (in the positive direction) in the mean scores of
camper measures of “feelings about reading” from pretest (M = 2.09, SD = 1.20) to
posttest (M = 1.89, SD = 1.08), t(590) = 5.96 p < .001. In addition, almost half of all

Garst and Ozier 333

participants (49%) shared that what they liked best about the program was “reading by
myself” followed by 33% who enjoyed “reading with counselors.” These results sug-
gest that campers’ feelings about reading improved following their participation in
Explore 30.

Qualitative data analysis from the director surveys identified themes related to
organizational capacity building for the provision of reading in day and resident
camps, including (a) increased interest in reading by campers, (b) enhanced learning
opportunities, (c) increased sense of community in camp, and (d) promotion of both
PYD and academic outcomes. The reading resources provided through Explore 30
were critical for capacity building. More than 91% of directors shared that books pro-
vided by Explore 30 partners were the most important resource they received through
the program.

The skill-building dimension of PYD was stressed by camp directors. Skills men-
tioned most often by directors included life skills and reading confidence.

One idea that directors repeatedly mentioned was that Explore 30 encouraged
campers to see reading as a fun activity; campers were excited about reading and
would pursue opportunities to read on their own. Frontline program staff played an
important role in encouraging campers to read. As one director shared,

Children were more likely to read when they saw their peers reading. They also enjoyed
the chance to read books together as partners and share the book. The main difference
was that children began to choose reading as an activity when there was free time.

These free time periods offered campers a wide range of activity options, yet many
chose reading. Directors also noted that Explore 30 supported other learning opportu-
nities at camp and they were able to integrate the program into other activities and
programs.

In some cases, directors specifically mentioned that the program was not success-
ful. Challenges with regard to program implementation included failure to create buy-
in from program staff, improper preprogram planning and organization, and insufficient
program resources and organizational support. Camps that reported fewer program
benefits commented that they lacked the resources to adequately implement the pro-
gram. The most commonly cited recommendation was the need for more reading
materials. A particularly salient finding was the importance of program intentionality
when determining when campers read, where campers read, and how reading was
integrated into other camp activities. Camp directors who failed to start their program
planning early were less successful than those who allowed sufficient time for pro-
gram planning.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that the Explore 30 Camp Reading Program was an
appropriate model for enhancing organizational capacity for summer reading for youth
attending U.S. camps. Data from both campers and staff supported that approximately

334 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

70% of youth participating in the program read for 30 min or more each day of their
camp session, providing an experiential learning opportunity for students to learn aca-
demic skills outside the school setting.

Explore 30 was also an effective approach for enhancing youth outcomes in the
areas of reading enjoyment and engagement, which supports the results of similar CRP
studies (Arend & Rogers, 2013). A significant positive difference was found in the
mean scores of campers’ self-report measures of “feelings about reading” from pretest
to posttest. Furthermore, camp directors indicated that campers were more likely to
read during free time and more interested in reading because of Explore 30. These
results lend support to the relationship Stokmans (1999) found between enjoyment and
time spent reading.

Providing youth with the opportunity to read at least 30 min each day appeared to
be not only programmatically practical but also sufficient for producing the desired
impacts on reading attitudes as suggested by previous research (Ohio Department of
Education, 2000; Wright, 1992). Although some CRPs provide youth with longer
reading periods ranging from 75 to 120 min, this study suggests that positive impacts
are possible through 30 min of daily reading.

Camp directors also reported learning a number of promising practices for incorpo-
rating reading into camp programs including creating a camp library, integrating read-
ing into other camp activities, and incorporating writing into camp activities. Youth
serving organizations that offer CRPs are encouraged to provide youth with opportuni-
ties consistent with an experiential education approach, including offering a wide
range of reading resources, integrating reading into existing programs, and exploring
creative way to naturally include writing or journaling into camp activities. Providing
books or children’s magazines for each camper to take home at the end of camp, and
building connections between campers, families, and local community organizations
such as libraries and other summer learning providers may facilitate postcamp
reading.

The challenges that some camps experienced with integrating Explore 30 in camp
highlight several strategies that camps need to consider before planning a CRP. Proper
planning, securing staff buy-in and engagement beforehand, and incorporating suffi-
cient resources and support were found to be critical factors separating those camps
that successfully implemented Explore 30 and those that did not. The importance of
programming with intention to achieve targeted results, as identified in this study, has
been a clear trend in the camp and youth development literatures (Bialeschki et al.,
2007; Mainieri & Anderson, 2014; Walker, 2006).

The study findings reflected two of the “Big Three” PYD tenets found in the youth
development literature (Lerner, 2004), including positive relationships with peers and
adults and engagement in skill-building activities. The role of frontline camp staff as
supportive adults during reading time was particularly impactful for facilitating PYD.
The third PYD tenet—opportunities for youth to be involved in family, school, or
community leadership—was less evident in this study; however, campers who were
engaged in leadership opportunities such as reading aloud to other campers as a part of
Explore 30 may have experienced a transfer of benefits to their homes, schools, or

Garst and Ozier 335

communities. Whether or not such CRP-related leadership opportunities are sustained
beyond the on-site camp experience needs further study.

The impact of CRPs on academic experiential learning outcomes also needs further
examination. Although the challenges of using the experimental randomized control
trial in camps have been noted (Bialeschki, Henderson, Browne, & Hickerson, 2011),
an exploration of CRP impacts using a randomized, control group and a pre–post
design might provide greater rigor and enhance our understanding of the efficacy of
camp-based reading strategies. In some program settings, particularly where camp–
school partnerships already exist, the implementation of a randomized control design
may be more feasible.

Camp programs in the United States vary from those offered in other countries, and
the findings of this study may therefore reflect a uniquely American approach to the
implementation of a CRP. Although some researchers have found elements inherent to
camp experience that transcend national and cultural boundaries (Fine & Tuvshin,
2010), the impacts associated with Explore 30 may be difficult to replicate through
international camp programs due to language, custom, and value system differences
(Hantrais & Mangen, 1996).

Effectively implementing new programs such as Explore 30 across camps can be a
challenge because camp programming formats and foci vary considerably (Bialeschki
et al., 2011). For this reason, flexible programming models are particularly valuable to
practitioners (Berkel, Mauricio, Schoenfelder, & Sandler, 2011). Explore 30 provided
a reading program structure that could be adapted to fit a range of informal, experien-
tial settings. When high-quality programs intentionally designed to meet target out-
comes are integrated with other characteristics of camp experiences like sustained
duration and intensity, camps not only make short-term impacts on the developmental
outcomes and attitudes of youth but also become transformative experiences with last-
ing benefits (Garst, Franz, Baughman, Smith, & Peters, 2009).

Authors’ Note

This research was conducted in cooperation with the American Camp Association as part of the
evaluation of the Explore 30 program.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

References

American Camp Association. (2005). Directions: Youth development outcomes of the camp
experience. Retrieved from www.acacamps.org/research/enhance/directions

www.acacamps.org/research/enhance/directions

336 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

American Camp Association. (2006). Inspirations: Developmental supports and opportuni-
ties of youths’ experiences at camp. Retrieved from www.acacamps.org/research/enhance/
inspirations

Anderson, R. C., Fielding, L. G., & Wilson, P. T. (1988). Growth in reading and how children
spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-304.

Arend, L., & Rogers, M. (2013, March/April). The perfect place to read: Encouraging the
love of reading at camp. Camping Magazine. Retrieved from www.acacamps.org/camp-
mag/1303/perfect-place-read

Barcelona, R. J., & Quinn, W. (2011). Trends in youth development research topics: An integra-
tive review of positive youth development research published in selected journals between
2001-2010. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 21-39.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Semsa, A., Jr. (2006). Positive youth develop-
ment: Theory, research, and applications. In R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.) & W. Damon (Editors-
in-chief), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol.
1, 6th ed., pp. 894-941). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Berkel, C., Mauricio, A. M., Schoenfelder, E., & Sandler, I. N. (2011). Putting the pieces
together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23-33.

Bialeschki, M. D., Henderson, K. A., Browne, L., & Hickerson, B. (2011). Challenges to
field-based outdoor research: Pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of Outdoor Recreation,
Education, and Leadership, 3(2), 77-79.

Bialeschki, M. D., Henderson, K. A., & James, P. A. (2007). Camp experiences and develop-
mental outcomes for youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America,
16, 769-788.

Borman, G. D., Goetz, M. E., & Dowling, N. M. (2009). Halting the summer achievement slide:
A randomized field trial of the KindergARTen summer camp. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 14, 133-147.

California Library Association. (2013). Results from the California summer reading outcomes
initiative. Retrieved from www.cla-net.org/general/custom.asp?page=86

Celano, D., & Neuman, S. B. (2001). The role of public libraries in children’s literacy develop-
ment: An evaluation report. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Library Association, Evaluation and
Training Institute.

Coale, A. W. (1914, July 25). Life in a girls’ camp. Outlook, p. 712.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (Eds.). (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent

development. Child & Youth Services, 4, 57-76.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of sum-

mer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 227-268.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer?

Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological
Review, 69, 613-635.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth develop-
ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2000). Summer learning and home environ-
ment. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A nation at risk (pp. 9-30). New York, NY: Century
Foundation Press.

www.acacamps.org/research/enhance/inspirations

www.acacamps.org/research/enhance/inspirations

www.acacamps.org/campmag/1303/perfect-place-read

www.acacamps.org/campmag/1303/perfect-place-read

www.cla-net.org/general/custom.asp?page=86

Garst and Ozier 337

Fine, S., & Tuvshin, T. (2010). Fostering cosmopolitan citizenship through camp experience:
Comparative research in North America and Central Asia. Presented at the 10th Biennial
Research Symposium, Coalition for Education in the Outdoors, Indiana University,
Bradford Woods. Retrieved from www.ccamping.org/index.php?id=41

Gambone, M. A., Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth:
Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Philadelphia,
PA: Youth Development Strategies.

Garst, B., Browne, L., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2011). Youth development and the camp experi-
ence. In L. Allen & R. Barcelona (Eds.), New directions for youth development (Special
Issue on Recreation as a Developmental Experience, No. 130, pp. 73-87). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.

Garst, B., & Bruce, F. (2003). Identifying 4-H camping outcomes using a standardized evalua-
tion process across multiple 4-H educational centers. Journal of Extension, 41(3). Retrieved
from www.joe.org/joe/2003june/rb2.php

Garst, B., Franz, N., Baughman, S., Smith, C., & Peters, B. (2009). Growing without limita-
tions: Transformation among young adult camp staff. Journal of Youth Development, 4(1),
23-36.

Garst, B., Morgan, C., & Bialeschki, D. (2011). 2011 explore camp reading program impact
report. Martinsville, IN: American Camp Association.

Gass, M. A., Gillis, H. L., & Russell, K. C. (2012). Adventure therapy: Theory, research, and
practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gordon, E. W., Bridglall, B. L., & Meroe, A. S. (2005). Supplementary education: The hidden

curriculum of high academic achievement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hantrais, L., & Mangen, S. (1996). Cross-national research methods in the social sciences.

London, England: Pinter.
Henderson, K. A., Bialeschki, M. D., & James, P. A. (2007). Overview of camp research. Child

and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16, 755-767.
James, P. A. (2009). Cyclic trends in the history of camping: Reflections on the past/implica-

tions for the future. Orlando, FL: North Carolina State University.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.
Locke, J. L. (1988). The effectiveness of summer reading programs in public libraries in the

United States (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Mainieri, T. L., & Anderson, D. M. (2014). Exploring the “Black Box” of programming:

Applying systematic implementation evaluation to a structured camp curriculum. Journal
of Experiential Education, 37(1), 1-18.

Mannell, R. C. (1999). Leisure experience and satisfaction. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton
(Eds.), Leisure studies at the millennium (pp. 235-251). State College, PA: Venture.

McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers.
The Reading Teacher, 43(8), 626-639.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2010). To read or not to read: A question of national con-
sequence. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/publications/read-or-not-read-question-national-
consequence-0

Nippold, M. A., Duthie, J. K., & Larsen, J. (2005). Literacy as a leisure activity: Free time pref-
erences of older children and young adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 36, 93-102.

www.ccamping.org/index.php?id=41

www.joe.org/joe/2003june/rb2.php

http://arts.gov/publications/read-or-not-read-question-national-consequence-0

http://arts.gov/publications/read-or-not-read-question-national-consequence-0

338 Journal of Experiential Education 38(4)

Ohio Department of Education. (2000). Educator’s desk reference—Scientifically-based read-
ing research reviews. Retrieved from www.schoodoodle.com/shop/images/RF_Ed_Desk_
Ref

Paris, L. (2008). Children’s nature: The rise of the American summer camp. New York: New
York University Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005). Learning when school is not in session: A reading summer day
camp intervention to improve the achievement of exiting first-grade students who are eco-
nomically disadvantaged. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 158-169.

Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific
associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 211-229.

Stokmans, M. J. (1999). Reading attitude and its effect on leisure time reading. Poetics, 26,
245-261.

Thurber, C., Scanlin, M., Scheuler, L., & Henderson, K. (2007). Youth development outcomes
of the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36, 241-254.

Van Westervelt, D., Johnson, D. C., Westervelt, M. D., & Murrill, S. (1998). Changes in
self-concept and academic skills during a multimodal summer camp program. Annals of
Dyslexia, 48, 189-212.

Walker, J. A. (2006, Winter). Intentional youth programs: Taking theory to practice. In D. A.
Blyth & J. A. Walker (Eds.), Rethinking programs for youth in the middle years (New
Directions for Youth Development No. 112). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

White, W. S. (1906). Reviews before and after school vacation. American Education, 10,
185-188.

Wright, A. (1992). Evaluation of the first British reading recovery programme. British
Educational Research Journal, 18, 351-368.

Author Biographies

Barry A. Garst, PhD is Associate Professor of Youth Development Leadership at Clemson
University, USA. Email: bgarst@clemson.edu

Lance W. Ozier is the Senior Literacy Specialist at the Institute for Student Achievement, a
division of ETS; and volunteers on the American Camp Association’s Committee for the
Advancement of Research and Evaluation (CARE). Email: lancewittozier@gmail.com

www.schoodoodle.com/shop/images/RF_Ed_Desk_Ref

www.schoodoodle.com/shop/images/RF_Ed_Desk_Ref

mailto:bgarst@clemson.edu

mailto:lancewittozier@gmail.com