|
| |
|
| |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making Art in the Outdoors: Community-based Residential Youth Arts CampsIncreasingly, researchers and practitioners are recognizing the importance of community-based youth arts programs in the development of today’s youth (Heath, McLaughlin). “Community-based arts” refers to a broad range of activities taking place at a variety of sites, including Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, grassroots organizations, performing and cultural arts centers, and museums (Heath). Researchers from a number of disciplines are exploring the structures, benefits, and effects of community-based arts. However, the majority of these studies focus on after-school arts programs and their potential to produce positive social, academic and emotional changes in “at-risk” youth (Allen, Cox & Cooper; Mason & Chuang; Wright, John, Alaggia & Sheel). There is a lack of understanding about the role of other community-based arts programs in youth’s lives. One such program is the residential community-based youth arts camp. What is a “residential community-based arts camp”? The term “arts camp” has been applied to a wide variety of programs, from after-school classes sponsored by local parks & recreation departments to intensive summer-long retreats at prestigious conservatories. For the purposes of this study, I am specifically interested in residential outdoor camps that offer high-quality instruction in the arts. As opposed to day camps or after-school programs, participants of these programs eat, sleep, learn and play on-site under the care of trained counselors A typical day’s schedule includes instruction in the visual and/or performing arts, usually by professional guest artists, as well as a range of traditional “camp” activities (swimming, hiking, campfires, etc.). A preliminary survey reveals several such camps around the country, yet this type of program is not well understood within academic circles. Residential community-based arts camps exist at the convergence of art education, environmental education and youth development. To better understand this emerging field of study, I searched related topics, such as community-based arts (Heath, McLaughlin,), youth camps (Marsh; Thurber, Scanline, Scheuler & Henderson), and outdoor education (Bagot; Travlou). This paper represents a review of current literature about topics closely related to residential community-based arts camps. Based on these findings, I will explore some best practices across disciplines and discuss their implications for youth arts camp programming and policy. Throughout this paper, I will refer to several youth arts camps in the U.S., and use information gathered from their literature to illustrate specific points. They were found through online searches using key phrases such as “arts camp,” “youth camp,” etc. Camps mentioned in this paper include: Appel Farm Arts & Music Center The Bauen Camp Buck’s Rock Creative & Performing Arts Camp Caldera How can community arts programs contribute to positive youth development? Extracurricular programs for youth, specifically after-school and community-based programs, are currently gaining a significant amount of attention from researchers and practitioners across a variety of fields and disciplines, including psychology (Chappell; Larson & Hansen), sociology and social work (Mason & Chuang; Wright, John, Alaggia & Sheel), parks and recreation (Allen, Cox, & Cooper), and arts education and cultural policy (Heath, McLaughlin, Wright). The primary incentive for the creation and proliferation of after-school programs is the idea that youth now spend too many out-of-school hours without guidance, adult contact or constructive projects. Well-designed programs can fill critical after-school hours with opportunities for emotional, social and cognitive growth (Farnum & Schaffer; Heath & Smyth). Heath (1998) admits that few studies on community-based arts programs “start with the view that the arts can and should stand on their own as valuable” (p. 4). The majority of research reviewed for this paper did not focus on the benefits of “arts for arts sake,” but on the secondary benefits that arts programming can offer. According to Wright, this “preoccupation with art as life-enriching for youths” has roots in the movements of art as therapy and art as a cognitive tool (124). “At-risk” youth are primarily defined as coming from low-income families and/or neighborhoods in both urban and rural areas (Mason & Chuang; Wright et al.), although researchers also associate the term with behavioral problems, juvenile records and ethnic minority status (Allen et al.; Wright et al.,). A focus on “at-risk” or “disadvantaged” populations is evident in two of the four camps listed earlier - Caldera and The Bauen Camp. Their programs pledge to teach the arts, but they also aim to focus on a range of social and emotional improvements. For example, in a 2001 campwide evaluation, The Bauen Camp assessed the following program objectives:
Although programs for disadvantaged youth receive positive attention from researchers, politicians and the media, they are not without their critics. Chappell argues that too many programs frame the youth, their families and their communities as lacking, thereby validating the extension of state ideological control over people of a low socio-economic class. “Educators often employ a deficit model, providing the arts for at-risk youth to help them become what they are not and experience what they cannot from their own communities” (13). To evaluate the success of community-based youth art programs, researchers rely on both quantitative and qualitative methods, including attendance sheets, interviews, behavior checklists, assessment surveys and standardized measurement tools borrowed from the fields of childhood development and youth recreation (Allen et al.; Mason & Chuang; Wright et al.). In their study of the impact of a summer day camp, Allen et al. ask youth to fill out pre- and post-test surveys that measure changes in six positive resiliency indicators. Wright et al. and Mason & Chuang structure their evaluations to measure not only the growth of positive behaviors, but also the reduction of negative behaviors (attention problems, delinquency, conflict with peers, etc.). Observed weaknesses in the studies include small sample sizes, self-selected participant groups and lack of randomization. How can outdoor play contribute to positive youth development? Richard Louv, in his bestselling book “Last Child in the Woods,” describes a dramatic lack of direct experiences with nature among today’s youth, a phenomenon he calls “nature-deficit disorder.” Louv’s premise -- that natural environments positively influence youth development – is a popular topic in current literature, but it is not new. Jane Addams and the progressive settlement workers of the late 19th Century believed that being close to nature builds character and independence. According to Davis, “To many settlement workers, the best and most creative kind of play was rural play: many remembered their own childhood vacations spent romping in the woods … and imagined that if other boys and girls could get out to the country in the summer, even for a short time, they would find strength of purpose and character” (61). Statistically significant positive relationships exist between a child’s play environment and physical, cognitive and social benefits. Beyond improving physical fitness performance, outdoor play in natural settings has been shown to:
(Travlou 14) A growing body of anecdotal and statistical evidence suggests that today’s youth have less time to engage in unstructured outdoor play and fewer green spaces in which to play (Louv, 2005). In an increasingly urbanized world, most youth only have access to outdoor environments such as playgrounds and schoolyards. According to Bagot, “It is not that the presence of buildings or other modern developments per se that is considered detrimental; it is the absence of natural elements such as trees and grassy spaces” (11). Access to natural spaces is not the only thing restricting children’s outdoor play; parental concerns about risk and safety, young people’s fears about safety, and the attraction of indoor activities (video games, television, etc.) are also significant factors (Louv, Rivkin, Travlou). Unfortunately, urban youth who have the least access to wilderness spaces are also the most restricted due to safety concerns. Despite limited access and exposure, studies show that youth have a favorable impression of outdoor play. Writes Travlou, “Young people’s perceptions of wilderness and values of nature have attracted much research interest.” For instance, during in-depth interviews conducted by Titman children said that they preferred to play in open spaces with grassy areas and trees and did not like spaces with concrete, rubbish or dirt. Bagot describes several emerging but respected theories from various researchers on why children (and people of all ages) may prefer outdoor spaces:
(Bagot 11) How can organized summer camps contribute to positive youth development? According to the American Camp Association (2007), the accreditation-granting body for camps in the United States, the term “camp” refers to “a sustained camp experience that provides creative, recreational and educational opportunities in group living in the outdoors. It utilizes trained leadership and the resources of natural surroundings to contribute to each camper's mental, physical, social and spiritual growth” (para. 2). This assumption that camp inherently contributes to participants’ growth may be responsible for a lack of academic literature on the topic. According to Marsh, “Little research is available on the influence that an organized camping experience has on youth, mainly because there seems to be general agreement that camp is good for kids” (36). What research does exist, however, tends to support the idea that residential camp experiences can promote leadership skills, responsibility and self-confidence (Dworken; Henderson, Bialeschki, Scanlin, Thurber, Whitaker & Marsh; Henderson, Bialeschki, & James). Although researchers have studied camps and their effects on youth since the 1920s, much of this research was anecdotal. The turn of the 21st Century brought a greater need for accountability from all types of youth programs, which inspired a “resurgence of interest in camp research, and particularly the documentation of youth development outcomes” (Henderson et al. 756). One such study of development outcomes, conducted by the ACA (as cited in Henderson et al. 760), surveyed more than 5,000 campers and their parents. The results showed that youth typically benefit from camp in the following ways:
It is interesting to note the correlation between development through the arts and development through organized camp experiences. Camps and outdoor-education programs are especially impressive because their benefits have been shown to be long-lasting. According to a meta-analysis of over 50 years of research on outdoor education by Neill & Richards, “outdoor education programs can trigger in participants an ongoing cycle of personal growth” (7). The authors note that with most therapeutic programs (for youth and adults), benefits to participants diminish steadily when the program is over. This research lends credibility to decades of anecdotal evidence that camps are “good for kids.” What are some “best practices” for arts camp programming? Literature from all of the disciplines reviewed for this paper emphasized the importance of cultivating strong, supportive relationships between youth participants and program staff. For example, when surveyed, camp directors identified “contact and leadership from trained staff and the supportive relationships they provided” as an essential element of camp (Henderson et al. 3). This research suggests the value of comparing campers’ length of stay, as well as to what extent their camp experience is integrated into year-round programming. Caldera is an example of a program that builds in opportunities for year-round participation, and provides incentives for youth to stay involved year after year. Caldera’s literature clearly states that its impact on students “is both deep and sustained” and that it builds “lasting relationships that change lives” (http://65.197.140.241/). Veteran Caldera students who participated in residencies and/or summer retreats can further their artistic pursuits by applying to Caldera’s apprentice program. Apprenticeship is a two-year commitment that begins in the spring of a student’s sophomore year. Apprentices participate in a 24-day arts-and-leadership retreat, and then work alongside professional artists to advance their artistic skills in real-world settings. They also develop leadership skills while working as junior counselors and artists assistants with younger campers. The summer camp experience is followed by year-round arts mentoring, leadership training, portfolio development and connections to universities and careers in creative fields. Beyond developing long-term, sustained programs, camps should also maintain a relatively stable workforce. Perhaps in recognition of this, several camps highlight the experience of their staff and the percentage of counselors and artists who return year after year. The Bauen Camp’s Web site, for example, includes a staff page with bios of teachers and counselors. All of the people featured are returnees, some for four or five summers. Buck’s Rock, on its staff Web page, “We are particularly proud that we retain a significant percentage of our staff from year to year. In addition, a number of our staff members have had the experience of being campers and CITs, offering the unique perspective of being able to closely relate to the experiences of our campers.” Another theme across several fields is the importance of risk. Although a program must provide a safe space with caring adults, without opportunity for healthy risk-taking youth become uninterested and unengaged. According to Heath & Smyth, “For young people, trying something new constitutes the most attractive risk; a close second comes in returning to a previous failure. Youth-based organizations offer both types of risk on a constant basis, with the challenge of something new the most frequent” (29). Guided risk is closely associated with successful workforce preparation. Training in the arts helps youth, especially at-risk youth, develop creative-thinking, problem-solving and communication skills that help them become economically self-sufficient (Psilos, 2002). According to Elliot W. Eisner of Stanford University, training in the arts helps youth develop competencies in six key areas: perception of relationships; skills in finding multiple solutions to problems; attention to nuance; adaptability; decision-making skills; and visualization of goals and outcomes (as cited in Psilos 4). Write Heath & Smyth, “Of all youth-based activities possible for involving youth in community organizations, the arts offer the greatest range and depth of opportunity for building information and honing skills – technical, communicative and interpretive” (27). What do related fields suggest about the potential for residential community-based youth arts camps to contribute to positive youth development? Residential summer camps provide ample opportunities for unstructured outdoor play, and therefore these settings have the potential to positively affect children’s physical, cognitive and emotional development. All of the camps mentioned at the beginning of this paper are located in the outdoors, a fact that is prominently highlighted in their program descriptions. Descriptions of the places are used to develop a desirable aesthetic; there is an assumed, inherent “goodness” about the outdoors, reminiscent of Jane Addams and the settlement workers of the 19th Century. For example, Buck’s Rock says in its opening welcome, “Under towering oak and maple trees, our campers discover their passions….” The Bauen Camp says that its “natural beauty…provides a perfect setting for the learning we know is possible.” More research is necessary to understand exactly how the organizations articulate the benefits of receiving arts instruction in a natural setting. Summer arts camps can provide ample opportunities to experience healthy risk by “trying something new” – whether it’s related to the arts or to the outdoors. On its Web site, Appel Farm Arts asks youth, “Want to try something new? Of course! Try new arts forms, take risks…broaden your artistic horizons!” Working alongside other risk takers in this type of supportive environment can build confidence in one’s ability to follow through on plans (Heath). Buck’s Rock frames riskas freedom of choice; it was founded on the belief that “to act and work creatively, young people should choose their activities and be allowed the time they need.” Again, more research is needed to better understand what types of activities and programming structures create ideal learning environments for encouraging healthy risk-taking. A final best practice noted in the literature is the need to see youth as community resources, rather than problems. This may have emerged in response to widespread focus on “at-risk” youth. After studying over 124 youth arts organizations across the United States, Heath & Smyth wrote, “The most effective organizations see their task as not serving youth as problems but instead as working with youth as resources for their families, communities and the society at large” (25). Youth arts camps are an ideal setting for cultivating youth as organizational resources, whether it’s through the creation of youth-led art, or the mentoring of younger campers. For my master’s project at the University of Oregon, I plan to expand upon the ideas and questions presented in this paper by interviewing youth arts camp directors and surveying camp instructors and collecting internal documents (program guides, hiring manuals, strategic plans, etc.) Although Web sites and documents may not accurately reflect reality (Creswell), for the purposes of this study, it is just as important to review what policies, procedures and beliefs have been recorded, and to discuss how they compare to the values, beliefs and opinions of camp leaders and staff members. Interviews with camp leaders (executive directors and/or education directors) will provide me with a deeper understanding of an organization’s programming, goals and structure. Interviews are a useful way to gather information in lieu of observation (Creswell), which is important because many camps operate during the summer, after this research project will have been submitted. I’m particularly intrigued by how leaders and staff articulate the benefits of offering arts instruction in an outdoor setting, since this is an underdeveloped theory within the literature. My interviews with camp leaders will be guided by the following questions: Articulating the benefits of an outdoor arts camp
Curriculum Development
Stability and Longevity
The final goal of the master’s project will be to describe youth arts camps as a body of practice, that they may be better understood by artists, educators, parents and current youth arts camp administrators. Community-arts and youth camps have only recently to move beyond anecdotal evidence to outcome-based assessment tools. Most current research outlines potential benefits for youth participants, but does not go so far as to demonstrate causal relationships between benefits and specific program elements. More research is needed to better understand how residential youth arts camps can create intentional, effective programs and practices that contribute to positive youth-development outcomes. In an era of increasing accountability, it is imperative that community-based organizations, including youth arts camps, be able to clearly place themselves within the field and articulate the measurable outcomes of their programs. This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2008, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art. The essay was reviewed and selected by the project's Editorial Board: Ron Bechet, Xavier University of Louisiana; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Sonia Mañjon, California College of the Arts; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; and Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University. Katie Schumm graduated from the University of Oregon in June 2008 with a master's degree in arts administration. She hopes to direct a youth arts camp someday. Works Cited Allen, L. R., J. Cox & N.L. Cooper. “The Impact of a Summer Day Camp on the Resilience of Disadvantaged Youths.” The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 77 (2006): 17-23. Bagot, K. “The Importance of Green Play Spaces for Children -- Aesthetic, Athletic and Academic. EINGANA - Journal of the Victorian Association for Environmental Education 28.3 (2005): 11-16. “Careers in the Camp Community.” 2007. American Camp Association. 6 June 2007 http://www.acacamps.org/jobs/career.php. Chappell, S.V. “Children ‘At Risk’: Constructions of Childhood in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Federal After-school Program.” Arts Education Policy Review 108 (2007): 9-15. Davis, A. F. Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement 1890-1914. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1984. Dworken, B. S. “The Unique Contributions and Impacts of the Camp Staff Experience.” February 2004. American Camp Association Conference. 27 Jan. 2008 <http://www.acacamps.org/research/CRS_handouts_2004.pdf> Farnum, M., R. Schaffer. YouthARTS Handbook: Arts Programs for Youth at Risk. Washington, D.C.: Americans for the Arts, 1998. Heath, S. B. “Living the Arts through Language-learning: A Report on Community- Based Youth Organizations.” Americans For the Arts: Monographs 2.7 (1998): entire issue. Heath, S. B., L. Smyth. Art Show: Youth and Community Development. Washington, D.C.: Partners for Livable Communities, 1999. Henderson, K., M. Bialeschki, M. Scanlin, C. Thurber, L. Whitaker & P. Marsh. (2006). “Components of Camp Experiences for Positive Youth Development.” Journal of Youth Development. 1.3 (2006). Henderson, K. A., M D. Bialeschki & P.A. James. “Overview of Camp Research.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 16 (2007): 755-767. Larson, R., D. Hansen. “Differing Profiles of Development Experiences Across Types of Organized Youth Activities.” Developmental Psychology 42 (2006): 849-863. Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005. Marsh, P.E. “Does Camp Enhance Self-esteem?” Camping Magazine 72.6 (1999): 36-39. Marsh, P.E. “What Does Camp Do for Kids? A Meta-analysis of the Influence of the Organized Camping Experience on the Self Constructs of Youth.” 1999. American Camp Association. 6 June 2007 http://www.acacamps.org/research/marsh/. Mason, M., S. Chuang. “Culturally-based After-school Arts Programming for Low-Income Urban Children: Adaptive And Preventive Effects.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 22 (2001): 45-54. McLaughlin, M. W. Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Network, 2000. Neill, J. T., G.E. Richards. “Does Outdoor Education Really Work? A Summary of Recent Meta-analyses.” Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 3.1 (1998): 1-9. Psilos, P. “The Impact of Arts Education on Workforce Preparation.” Economic & Technology Policy Studies. 2 May 2002. National Governor’s Association. 6 June 2007 <http://www.nga.org/>. Rivkin, M. S. Outdoor Experience for Young Children. Charleston, W.V.: ERIC Clearninghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, 2000. Thurber, C. A., M.M. Scanlin, L. Scheuler, K.A. Henderson. (2007). “Youth Development Outcomes of the Camp Experience: Evidence for Multidimensional Growth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36.3 (2007): 241-254. Travlou, P. “Wild Adventure Space for Young People.” OPENspace. 2006. Ediburgh College of Art. 15 Jan. 2008 http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/pdf/WASYP1LitRebSurvey220906.pdf. Wright, R. “A Conceptual and Methodological Framework for Designing and Evaluating Community-based After-school Art Programs.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2007): 123-132. Wright, R., L. John, R. Alaggia & J. Sheel. (2006). “Community-based Arts Program for Youth in Low-income Communities: A Multi-method Evaluation.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23 (2006): 635-652. Original CAN/API publication: August 2008 CommentsPost a comment Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
