Developing social skills among campers - Research Notes - Column

One of the long-espoused benefits of residential camping is that small-group living serves as a model for living in a democratic society where people cooperate and work together. To some extent, we also believe social-skill development is enhanced in day camp settings as well. We have a need to reassur ourselves that the work we do in helping young people grow and experience life through camp experiences is beneficial in a variety of ways.

Mainstreaming Children with Disabilities

Many of us believe that children with disabilities should be mainstreamed into settings with children who do not have disabilities. Many camps now provide integrated camp experiences with the belief that it will be beneficial to all the children.

Hepler (1994) conducted a study of the social environment where children who ha learning disabilities were mainstreamed into classrooms with children with no learning disabilities. Forty-one white, working-class children were studied using sociometric data. The first- through third-grade children were asked to rate how much they enjoyed playing with the other children in the class, and to name three best friends from among their peers. A standardized tool was used to measure self-perception of social skills.

The non-learning-disabled (NLD) children had high social status among their peers and rejected the learning-disabled (LD) children in play and other activities. The LD children liked both the other LD children as well as the NLD children, and would have liked the NLD children to be their friends. Girls with learning disabilities were the most peer rejected of all the children. Both the LD and NLD children rated themselves highly on the self-perception of social skills instrument; the children with learning disabilities were unrealistic in this self-assessment.

Implications: Campers have a variety of abilities and skill levels in all areas if we are to serve each camper to the highest level, these skill differences must be taken into account.

From this study we can see that merely providing the environment for social interaction is not enough to ensure increased social-skill development. Particularly for girls with learning disabilities (and we might surmise, all girls low in social skills), adult and programmatic structure is necessary to provide an atmosphere of peer friendship development.

Hepler, J. (1994). Mainstreaming children with learning disabilities: Have we improved their social environment? Social Work in Education, 16 (3), 143-154.

Play Activities and At-Risk Children

It has been said that play is the work of children, implying that through play, children are doing what they should to develop into socially acceptable adults. Understanding what is different about the play of children who are described as at-risk and those who are not at-risk may help us to better understand their needs for structured play opportunities.

Poidevant and Spruill (1993) suggest that the ability to play and communicate i integral to one's social and intellectual development. They describe four types of play: 1) functional, which consists of simple motor activities that develop coordination and movement, 2) constructive, where children learn to manipulate materials according to a plan and with a sense of organization, 3) games with rules, where children learn to adapt to rules imposed by others, and 4) dramati play, where the focus is on interactions with others and is person- oriented.

It is through dramatic play, contend the investigators, that one learns thoughts, feelings, and social skills. Children use this type of play to experiment with social roles, and to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

Twenty-six at-risk and 23 non-at-risk children in kindergarten through third grade were studied while at play. A standardized instrument was used to measure and record play activities. Six elements of dramatic play were examined: imitative role play, make-believe with objects, make-believe with actions and situations, persistence in role play, interaction, and verbal communication.

There were no gender differences in these elements of play, yet there were differences between the at-risk and non-at-risk children with regard to make-believe with objects (e.g. at-risk students constructed more forts), and make-believe with actions and situations (e.g. non at-risk students engaged in more verbal communication than at-risk students).

The investigators proposed that children who live in at-risk environments may not receive enough stimulation to develop make-believe skills. The children are so focused on the environment that they do not have the time and energy to develop imaginative abilities. These make-believe skills are necessary to enabl children to focus on social roles and develop into adults who understand and ca live within the social norms.

Implications: In this study the researchers found that if children did not experience the different types of make-believe that involved orientation toward people (because they were overly focused on survival) they would have difficult developing the social and communication skills necessary to fit in with society

In camps, we serve children who come from "all walks of life." Many come from environments that could lead to the child being described as at-risk. Providing opportunities for imaginative play and make-believe could be one way in which w could help children fully develop as social beings. The play settings would nee to be structured so as to help at-risk children develop verbal skills, and practice appropriate role behaviors.

Poidevant, J. & Spruill. D. (1993). Play activities of at-risk and non at-risk elementary students: Is there a difference? Child Study Journal, 23 (3), 173-186.

Deb Jordan, Re.D., is an associate professor of leisure services at the University of Northern Iowa.

COPYRIGHT 1994 American Camping Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group