Argument Analysis on Adventure Camp Programs

1092 Words3 Pages

Bruce A. Larson evaluates the effects of adventure camp programs on behavioral problem adolescents with low self-concept. Larson (2007) pulled sixty-one male and female adolescents and divided them into two groups. The treatment group was subjected to the adventure camp program while the control group was not. The two groups’ pretests and posttest were compared at the conclusion of the experiment in order to determine if significant differences existed (Larson, 2007). Larson’s argument failed to meet the criteria of a strong generalization, however, his strong causal argument successfully fulfilled the requirements needed. His generalizations lacked the proper amount of individuals and representation groups which indirectly lowered his randomness. This lack of a proper sample size reduced Larson’s ability to make a generalization about all adolescents with behavioral problems. His causal argument offered a logical explanation to the correlation between adventure camps and self-concept.

In Larson’s (2007) causal argument, he lists three null hypotheses stating that there would be no significant changes between the experimental and control group pretest and posttest self-concept scores measured by Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale (PHCSCS) (Larson, 2007). The improvement of self-concept, or the lack of, followed the initial exposure to a five day adventure camp. Larson concluded that the adventure camp program proceeded the absence of substantial change in the two groups self-concept score. However, the experiment recorded considerable differences between the pretest and posttest scores in regards to only the treatment group (Larson, 2007). Self-concept and adventure camp programs are correlated because, the camp targe...

... middle of paper ...

...ductive scale. His causal argument was strongly made because it clearly defined the cause and effect, correlation, and common thread linking the program with self-concept. The study could be reinforced by narrowing down the age group and allowing follow up tests. Larson’s generalized argument did not have such a strong score. The experiments sample size, representation, and randomness did not successfully encompass all adolescents with behavioral problems. His argument could have been stronger if he increased his sample size and chose from different groups of individuals. Larson used his credibility and logic to brace his claims but his foundation was not completely sound.

References

Larson, B. A. (2007). Adventure camp programs, self-concept, and their effects on behavioral problem adolescents. Journal of Experiential Learning, 29, 313-330.

More about Argument Analysis on Adventure Camp Programs

Open Document