Sport summer camp for children and youth with visual impairment: Descriptive case study of Camp Abilities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the operational characteristics of Camp Abilities, an educational sports summer camp for children and youth with visual impairment. In this descriptive multiple case study, the data collected comprises interviews with seven adapted physical education faculty members, questionnaire, and document analysis. Camps were often run at university campuses, where undergraduate and graduate physical education students perform the role of instructing campers and eventually helping in the camp organizing process. These camps include a minimum of 30 to more than 120 participants (i.e. directors, campers, coaches, and specialist) each session, lasting from 4 to 7 days. In this scenario, although each camp has particular features, camps’ purposes, participants, activities, and schedules are very similar, showing that this is a feasible and reproducible approach, which can provide enriching opportunities for diverse groups.

Keywords

Blindness children sport camp visual impairments physical activity

Introduction

In North America, the tradition of organized camp dates back to the middle of the 19th century, persisting to the present day being, perhaps, one of the largest interventions for children (3–12 years old) and youth (13–18 years old) apart from schools and churches (Bialeschki, Henderson, & James, 2007). Yearly, it is estimated that more than 11 million people of all ages attend camps (i.e. residential or day camps), in over 12,000 locations throughout the United States (American Camp Association, 2015). The conventional concept of camp refers to “organized experiences in group living in the outdoors that use trained leaders to accomplish intentional goals” (Henderson, Bialeschki, & James, 2007, p. 755). In camps, participants are often in contact with nature during the summer time, though some programs may be developed in settings such as churches, schools, and university campuses (Walsh, 2011).

In the last two decades, camp research became more evident, with studies being conducted in two major areas classified as outcome and operations research (Henderson et al., 2007). Although general day and resident camps may have been an under recognized setting to contribute to positive children and youth development, outcome research “point to increases in positive identity, social skills, physical and thinking skills, and positive values and spirituality” (Bialeschki et al., 2007, p. 784). Particularly, sport camp outcomes for children and youth with visual impairments (VI) have received special attention (Haegele, & Lieberman, 2014). For example, from a study based on The National Sports Education Camps (NSEC) project, Ponchillia, Armbruster, and Wiebold (2005) reported that by participating in a 1-week residential sports education camp, students with VI knew more about sports, improved physical skills, held more positive attitudes, and were more likely to become involved in local sports activities.

Camp Abilities (CA), another sport camp designed for children and youth with VI, was created in 1996 at the College at Brockport, State of New York, USA, and has been replicated at over 22 locations across the United States and in countries including Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Guatemala, Brazil, and Portugal (Haegele, Lieberman, Lepore, & Lepore-Stevens, 2014). Contrary to the NSEC program, CA is set up to provide a one-on-one instructional situation for each camper. Most often the camper is accompanied by an undergraduate or graduate physical education student serving as their coach. In this setting, the outcome to campers included reaching unprecedented and desirable high levels of physical activity (Lieberman, Stuart, Hand, & Robinson, 2006), the acquisition of new sport skills, the perception of their potential, and the testing of individual physical limits which served to set new self-defined standards (Goodwin, Lieberman, Johnston, & Leo, 2011). For coaches, the outcomes included the improvement of attitudes toward their ability to teach this group (Ellis, Lepore, & Lieberman, 2012; Lieberman et al., 2006).

As proposed by Henderson et al. (2007) operations research, a second area of camp research include topics like staffing, camp evaluation, and business analysis. In addition to these topics, Garst, Browne, and Bialeschki (2011) propose other camp characteristics (i.e. setting, program, and activity) that are important to provide the supports and opportunities needed for positive children and youth development and deserve to be explored by researchers. While a few manuscripts regarding these topics on sports camps for children and youth with VI have addressed these issues (Haegele, & Lieberman, 2014; Haegele et al., 2014; Schedlin & Lieberman, 2011), none of them have been based on a systematic original research. Thus, based on a multiple case study approach, the purpose of this study was to describe the operational characteristics of CA.

Methods

This research is characterized as a descriptive case study, as there has been no empirical research conducted on the operational characteristics of CA, a sport summer camp for children and youth with VI. A multiple case study design, considered to be more robust than single case study, was used in this investigation, allowing a single set of cross-case conclusions (Yin, 2009).

Sample selection

Purposeful sampling was used to discover, understand, and gain insight from a specific situation (Merriam, 1998). The founder of the first CA (Brockport, NY) identified eight camp directors, all currently working in a higher education setting and teaching the adapted physical activity/education courses. This specific sample was chosen to represent a more homogeneous group, with similar camps characteristics. Directors of CA not working in a higher education context were not selected, due to a broader diversity of camps purposes, participants, and settings. Eventually, seven participants (six females and one male) took part in the study.

Data collection

The first author was responsible for the data collection over a period of 14 weeks (22 October–1 February, 2014). There were three data sources used in this study: (1) questionnaires, (2) document analysis, and (3) interviews. Before developing the data collection protocol, the first author participated in two different CA (10 days’ experience), when observations were made, and notes were taken to record characteristics and organization processes of both camps. Ultimately, these notes were used to guide the creation of the study’s data collection protocol.

The data collection process consisted of a first contact e-mail explaining to likely participants the purpose of the study and its procedures. Additionally, the e-mail contained copies of the informed consent and the questionnaire. After receiving the signed informed consent and the completed questionnaire, the researcher proceeded with the analysis of documents related to each participant (i.e. camp website information) and subsequent scheduling of a Skype or phone interview. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the second author’s institution.

Questionnaire

The questions covered information of each CA operational characteristics. The main characteristics of cases are available in Table 1, in which each case was numbered to retain anonymity.

Table 1.

Camp Abilities characteristics.

	Camp 1	Camp 2	Camp 3	Camp 4	Camp 5	Camp 6	Camp 7
Camp editions	3	10	2	19	2	9	4
Camp length (days)	4	7	4	7	7	3	7
Number of campers (last edition)	21	20	12	53	12	27	33
Number of coaches (last edition)	25	30	17	70	20	30	33
Coaches origin	100% LUPEC	50% LUPEC; 50% other courses from the same university	100% former LUPEC	15%–20% LUPEC and LGPEC; 80%–85% other national and international universities (VI-related courses)	100% LGPEC	100% LUPEC	40% LUPEC; 60% UPEC from national universities and VI-related organizations

LUPEC: local undergraduate physical education course; LGPEC: local graduate physical education course; UPEC: undergraduate physical education course; VI: visual impairment.

Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were conducted to obtain information on relevant aspects of camps and its participants. The interview guide was developed in a way to ensure each participant was asked similar questions and to cover the areas of interest. The guide allowed flexibility to explore participant’s responses to the questionnaire and to investigate emerging themes likely to be important. The interview included questions such as “How can your students participate in Camp Abilities? Do they receive practicum credit for participating in Camp Abilities or any other advantage? Do counselors have a training before Camp Abilities? If yes, could you expanded on how the course is taught, please?” The questionnaire and interview guide were pilot-tested with one eligible participant and provided an opportunity for checking the appropriateness of questions, the time needed for conducting the interview, and for the field researcher to practice interviewing skills.

The interviews were conducted by the first author. Because of geographical distance (i.e. five in different USA states; one in Central America; one in Europe) between the respondents and the interviewer, we found to be most suitable to conduct the interviews through Skype-to-telephone (n = 4) or non visual Skype-to-Skype (n = 3) calls. All of the interviews were recorded using the MP3 Skype Recorder software 3.1. The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriber, and each transcript was reviewed against the audio record for accuracy.

Document analysis

Electronic documents from each camp website were examined, helping to substantiate the findings from questionnaires and interviews.

Data analysis

Interviews, questionnaires, and documents were analyzed in a three-step process of data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Data condensation occurred continuously throughout this project and consisted of decisions on choosing the conceptual framework, the cases, the research questions, and the data collection approaches. As the research proceeded, this phase also included writing summaries, coding, developing themes, and sub-themes. Based on inductive and deductive approaches, an initial coding list was created and served as the foundation to the data analysis (Miles et al., 2014; Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Yin, 2009).

In the next phase, a strategy called stacking comparable cases was employed, consisting of a mixed technique of case- and variable-oriented approaches. First, each case was displayed in a matrix and analyzed in depth. Then, we stacked the case-level displays in a meta-matrix (lines and columns) with all the cases and explored similarities and differences across cases and variables. This organized, compressed congregation of information allowed the development of assertions and propositions, representing the final researcher’s analytic choices (Miles et al., 2014).

Trustworthiness

We employed a variety of strategies to ensure the study’s trustworthiness. To establish content validity of the data collection instruments, two experts in qualitative research and three adapted physical activity faculty members reviewed and provided feedback on the elements of the questionnaire and interview guide (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995). Before field work commenced, both instruments were pilot-tested allowing further adjustments. To increase construct validity, the development of a sufficiently operational set of measures was accomplished using multiple data sources (documents, questionnaires, and interviews). In addition, member checks were performed when participants had the opportunity to check and confirm the accuracy of interview transcriptions (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, to address reliability, or the ability of different researchers to reach the same conclusions about the same case studies, we created a formal computerized database, including all documents, questionnaires, and interviews (Yin, 2009).

Results and discussion

The purpose of this study was to describe the operational characteristics of CA, an educational summer sport camp for children and youth with VI. From a multiple case study approach, we found two main themes, “people” and “camps.” Within the theme “people,” four sub-themes emerged: directors, campers, coaches, and specialist. Within the theme camp, four reoccurring sub-themes were found: CA purposes, sports and physical activities, changes, and funding.

The people

Directors

All of the participants were responsible for teaching the adapted physical activity class in a physical education or related course (i.e. kinesiology or sport studies). The sample had an average of 13 years (ranging from 3 to 31 years) of teaching experience in higher education and an average of 7 years (ranging from 2 to 19 years) of experience in running a CA. Before starting their own CA, three of the directors had themselves volunteered in a CA, two had a co-director who volunteered and shared the experience, and in one circumstance the director had heard about CA in a conference, contacted the founder of CA, and received directions of how to start the camp.

Directors’ responsibilities

Except for participant five, who is responsible specifically for facilitating the collaboration with university facilities, recruiting, and advising graduate and undergraduate students volunteers, all directors are involved in the whole process of planning, organization, and running of the camp. This tripartite process incorporates fundraising, overseeing athletes, coaches, volunteers, paid staff, sports, equipments, food, accommodation, certificates, and schedules. In this regard, participant six just says “I do everything but coach a sport.”

Shared responsibilities

Sharing duties in a packed event like a sport summer camp for children and youth with VI is crucial, so no one gets overwhelmed by the overload of activities. Therefore, in three camps, the directors are assisted by undergraduate or graduated volunteers, linked or not to an adapted physical activity class. In camp four, two graduate students receive a 1-year scholarship and in camp seven one undergraduate receives a 4-month internship to help in camp organization. In the other two camps, there was a team (i.e. people from organizations for people with VI and students enrolled in an adapted physical activity class) working together to run camps.

Campers

CA is specially designed for children and youth with low vision or blindness (Lieberman, Haegele, & Lepore, 2014). Participants reported that campers generally come from the surrounding community and those who attended once usually return to the same summer camp in the following year. For example, to be eligible to participate in CA Brockport, campers must possess the following characteristics:

They are between the ages of 9 and 19.

They have a VI (must have a vision teacher).

They are predominantly independent (helping with tying shoes, bathing, toileting, or picking clothes is fine).

They possess verbal or sign communication skills appropriate within 2 years of their age.

They display behaviors that allow them to function in a group setting that does not affect other group members (no biting, kicking, display of defiant behavior, running away).

They do not possess a medical problem that requires a nurse for constant supervision (Camp Abilities, 2015).

Besides including children and youth with VI, two camps assessed in this study also accepted a small proportion of participants with other disabilities, such as deafblindness (case four) autism, intellectual disability, and multiple disabilities (case seven). Although these accommodations are possible and seem to be positive for those involved, it is important to evaluate if modifications in activities, instruction, or equipments are necessary for each case, as the program is specially designed for those with VI. Regarding age, some camps may differ from the Brockport criteria and only include athletes within a specific age range (i.e. 10–14 years) or may accept children a little younger, at age 7.

Coaches

Alongside with campers (also called athletes) the coaches (also known as counselors) are a key group in CA. Working in a one-on-one relationship with campers throughout camp, the coaches are responsible to assist in each activity. Coaches are 18 or older predominantly physical education students (yet they may also be in adapted physical education, teacher of those with VI, or Orientation and Mobility professional preparation programs), except in camps two, four, and seven, in which a small proportion of high school students, undergraduate students from other course, or former camp attendees with VI (counselors in training) are accepted as coaches. In the later three camps, coaches can earn practicum credits. In cases six and seven, camp is based in a service-learning approach. In all camps, coaches are not paid.

Coaches training

Previous to camp commencement, all CA hold a training for the coaches, and although variations in length may occur, all follow similar contents, as presented by participant four:

On Saturday morning we have the orientation, where we have about an hour of just sitting in a big room, getting to know who’s there. And then we break up into different groups and we look at eye conditions, and we look at developmentally appropriate practices, we look at guiding techniques, how to you carry a lunch tray . . . they get their child’s file, and they get to see what their child’s visual impairment is, how old they are, what sports they like, how many years they’ve been at camp . . . they actually also go over the pool and all the aquatics responsibilities, and then we go from activity to activity . . . they get to try it, and they get to see what it’s like with a blindfold on so they can teach their children. How do you position the child? What is a proper throw? What is a proper way to throw in goal ball? What’s a safe way to play beep baseball? Then Sunday morning we get together, and they get a presentation from the nurse about medications, and about safety. We have a presentation from the police about safety on campus. We talk about the rules in the dorm. We talk about the rules for the cafeteria. We talk about being polite.

Specialist

In CA, sports specialists are the ones responsible for teaching a specific sport. These can be former athletes, but typically they have a degree in physical education or adapted physical education and experience in the sport taught as well as teaching children and youth with VI. Specific sport instruction to campers and their coaches is conducted by the sport specialists. The sport specialist then provides specific feedback and goal setting support (Haegele et al., 2014). Except in camp four, sports specialists are also not paid, though in some cases they receive help with their travel expenses. The participants of this study reported that specialist, in most cases, were their former students in higher education.

The camps

Camp Abilities purposes

The participant four, founder of CA at Brockport, explained that camp has been developed to meet four purposes. First, to provide an opportunity for children with VI to learn how to do after school and Paralympic sports, how to modify activities and accommodate to their needs. Second, to train future teachers how to teach children with VI. Third, to conduct much needed research in the area of physical activity and VI, and the last purpose is to provide a week of respite for the parents. As stated in CA websites, all cases shared the same purposes of the original CA, except for the research purpose. From our data, only participants four and seven mentioned they conduct research at camp in a regular basis.

Sports and physical activities

In the mornings and afternoons, camps’ programs most commonly consist of sports such as goalball, beep baseball, judo, track and field, swimming, tandem biking, and gymnastics. Additionally, other activities may also be performed (i.e. soccer five-a-side, basketball, rock climbing, horseback riding, mechanical bull, archery, beep kickball, paddle board, kayaking, stand up paddle boarding, cross-country running, rollerblading, duathlon, and triathlon) depending on the availability of equipment and facilities or the specificity to the geographic region where the camp occurs. The night program, while still comprises some of the aforementioned activities, is more aimed to foster socialization among the participants through a variety of activities including talent shows, dance, music, cooking, fishing, showdown, arts-and-crafts, and bonfire.

From the first author’s field notes, we present the example of 1-day schedule during the Brockport CA 2013:

7:45–8:45 am – Breakfast

8:15 am – Specialists meeting

8:30 am – Everybody meets for care to share

8:45–9:10 am – Gather belongings for morning activities

9:30–12:30 pm – Morning activities (tandem biking, beep baseball, track and field, and judo)

12:30–1:30 pm – Lunch

1:30–2:30 pm – Foot on bed

2:50–5:15 pm – Afternoon activities (goalball, swimming, and gymnastics)

5:45–6:45 pm – Dinner in dorms

6:15 pm – Everybody meets for care to share

6:45–8:45 pm – Night activities (canoeing, rollerblading, showdown, basketball)

8:00 pm – Snack

9:00 pm – Mandatory showers

10:00 pm – Lights out

10:00 pm – Mandatory staff meeting in lounge.

In a place where participants engage in different activities throughout the day, the structured instructional model used in CA deserves attention. According to Haegele et al. (2014, pp. 476–477), the instructional model followed at most camps is based on two levels of instruction:

The sport specialist provides the first level of instruction by teaching basic information about a specific sport or activity to a group of campers and their one-on-one coaches in small groups. This information can include an introduction to skills, strategies, modifications, and safety elements that are essential to the activity. Further, the sport specialist organizes the activity lesson, including components such as practice sessions and scrimmages.

The second phase of the instructional model is a one-on-one session with the camper’s coach, and includes more in-depth and individualized training. After receiving information on the theme or objective of the activity, the coach and camper work together to learn, refine, and master skills. During this time, the sport specialist in charge of the activity can assist each coach-and-camper pair by providing additional support or tips on modifications on how to adapt the game of necessary. (p. 476)

Changes

When asked how their CA had changed over the years, directors reported several aspects. For instance, participants one, two, and five agreed that participating in other camps or having someone with previous experience in CA helped them to reorganize their activities and the transitioning between them, which made camps more dynamic, and allowed more activities to be included in the program. In addition, participant six commented that at the beginning her camp was held only from Saturday to Sunday, and due to attendees’ and students’ demand it became longer and longer, being extended to run from Friday to Monday. Besides that, the number of participants tended to rise with camp maturity. For instance, this last camp started with nine children and evolved to 28 campers in its ninth edition. Participant seven further commented on how her camp changed and explained they started with sports they knew about and were comfortable with and then changed some of the sports and added new sports. Finally, participant four added a relevant view about how her faculty members’ roles were integrated and how it progressed:

At the beginning of camp it was all about teaching and service. I had to get money and I had to have students participate. I couldn’t even think about research. But about three years into it I thought I could fit some research in . . . now I see such a value in the research part of it that I always want that to be part of it what we do, but I don’t want to lose the focus of the main purpose as teaching: teaching the kids and teaching my students.

Funding

Fundraising is a central aspect of CA (Schedlin & Lieberman, 2011). In their handbook for starting sports camps for children and youth with VI, they highlighted that the availability of funds must be taken into consideration during the initial stage of program development. For this task, the authors suggest the involvement of community including Lions Clubs, local service organizations, police, local merchants, religious organizations, fraternities, and sororities. Furthermore, writing grants is also another option for faculty members directing a camp. In this study, the participants reported adopting all or a combination of these strategies and mentioned that because they were faculty members, they could run the program on campus. Which is financially beneficial, as they were not charged or at least received a discount for the use of campus facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, pools, fields, offices), staff, and equipments, except for participant seven who runs camp outside campus.

It is important to mention that one of our previous studies showed consistent positive effects of running a CA on faculty members teaching and service roles (Furtado, Lieberman, & Gutierrez, 2016). The directing experience improved faculty members’ disability knowledge, allowed them to teach using real-life examples, which consequently gave them more credibility in class. Students studying physical education and adapted physical education also benefited from camp participation by having an opportunity to apply theory to practice, change attitudes, and share out-of-class moments with their teacher throughout the length of camp. Within the theme service, directors reported the increase in disability awareness among CA participants, also including those occasionally watching the activities. Furthermore, CA was a unique sport experience opportunity for children and youth with VI from the statewide community. These results corroborate the findings of a similar study conducted by Marston (2002) and Walsh (2011).

Finally, the authors would like to share that new camps tend to focus on the interests of the directors and to be the length that is in the comfort zone of that new leader. For example, one of the camps researched has a triathlon as the culminating activity for the last day. The director is a major triathlete. This focus infuses the director’s passion and makes it a more enjoyable experience. In another camp, the director is a major kayaker, so the focus is on stand up paddle boarding, kayaking, and canoeing much of the days. In the same sense, some of the directors felt that a week camp would be too much financially and the time may be too consuming. Three- to four-day weekend camps were the option for some directors who felt this was more in line with what they could handle. Either way it is in these researchers’ experience that the 3- to 4-day camps are equally as powerful and effective as the 1-week camps.

Conclusion

Based on a multiple case study, we determined the operational characteristics of seven CA, developmental sport summer camps for children and youth with VI. Directed by adapted physical activity faculty member, camps were often run on the university campus where undergraduate and graduate physical education students have the role to instruct campers and eventually help in the camp organizing process. These camps were attended by a minimum of 30 to more than 120 participants (i.e. directors, campers, coaches, and specialist) each edition, lasting from 3 to 7 days.

To implement a new CA, it seems a good starting point to have a previous experience in another CA, when the process of planning, organization, and running the camp becomes more clear. Once the camp is established, activities and schedules can be changed in order to accommodate participants’ interests, including more days of camp, new sports, or even research projects. Therefore, although each camp has its own particular features, camps’ purposes, participants, activities, and schedules are mostly similar, showing that CA is a feasible and reproducible approach, which can provide enriching opportunities for diverse groups (i.e. children and youth with VI, undergraduate students, directors, and community).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: L.J.L. is the founder of the first Camp Abilities at SUNY Brockport.

Funding

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

References

American Camp Association. (2015). ACA facts and trends. Retrieved from http://www.acacamps.org/media/aca-facts-trends

Bialeschki

M. D.

Henderson

K. A.

James

P. A.

(2007). Camp experiences and developmental outcomes for youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16, 769–788.

Camp Abilities. (2015). A week-long sports camp for children with visual impairments. Available from http://www.campabilities.org

Ellis

M. K.

Lepore

Lieberman

(2012). Effect of practicum experiences on pre-professional physical education teachers’ intentions toward teaching students with disabilities in general physical education classes. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 18, 361–374.

Furtado

O. L. P. C.

Lieberman

L. J.

Gutierrez

G. L.

(2016). The outcomes of running a sport camp for children and youth with visual impairments on faculty members’ teaching, research, and service activities: A case study. Sport in Society, Special Issue, 1–15. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1080/17430437.2016.1225851

Garst

B. A.

Browne

L. P.

Bialeschki

M. D.

(2011). Youth development and the camp experience. New Directions for Youth Development, 130, 73–87.

Goodwin

D. L.

Lieberman

L. J.

Johnston

Leo

(2011). Connecting through summer camp: Youth with visual impairments find a sense of community. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28, 40–55.

Haegele

J. A.

Lieberman

L. J.

(2014). Summertime physical activity opportunities for youths with visual impairments and their families. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108, 347–350.

Haegele

J.J.

Lieberman

L.J.

Lepore

Lepore-Stevens

(2014). A service delivery model for physical activity: Camp Abilities. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 108, 473–483.

10.

Haynes

S. N.

Richard

Kubany

E. S.

(1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.

11.

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.

12.

Lieberman

L. J.

Haegele

J. A.

Lepore

(2014). Camp Abilities: A sports camp for children with visual impairments. Palaestra, 28, 37–43.

13.

Lieberman

L. J.

Stuart

M. E.

Hand

Robinson

(2006). An investigation of the motivational effects of talking pedometers among children with visual impairments and deaf-blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100, 726–736.

14.

Marston

(2002). Addressing the university’s tripartite mission through an early childhood movement program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(5), 35–41.

15.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Ponchillia

P. E.

Armbruster

Wiebold

(2005). The National Sports Education Camps Project: Introducing sports skills to students with visual impairments through short-term specialized instruction. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 685–695.

18.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85–109.

19.

Schedlin

Lieberman

L. J.

(2011). Sports for everyone: A handbook for starting sports camps for children with visual impairments. Watertown, MA: Perkins Publishing.

20.

Walsh

(2011). Strategies for developing a university-sponsored youth sports summer camp. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(9), 24–50.

21.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.