Applied Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks for Positive Youth Development Dr. Bob Barcelona Clemson University HEHD 800 January 31, 2012

My Queries… How (and to what extent) are your youth activities, programs, and/or organizations based on a specific and explicit theory or framework? If they are - what theoretical or philosophical frameworks are you using? If they aren’t – what assumptions are you making regarding the impact of your activities, programs, and/or organizations on positive youth development outcomes? “However, it is unclear what particular model of developmental process is explicitly used…This lack of integration represents one of several important obstacles to a fully reciprocal relation between practice and theory-predicated research in the service of the promotion of PYD.” - Lerner et al. (2011)

Remember… Youth development is shaped by multiple processes –Personal factors –Institutional factors –Cultural factors Successful development = degree of “fit” between the individual and her/his environment (Eccles, 2002; Lerner et al., 2011)

On Theory A principle or collection of principles that explain and/or predict some behavior or phenomenon Theories used to understand youth development tend to be multidisciplinary –Psychological –Sociological –Social-Psychological

When You Assume… All theories make assumptions about things Assumptions are most often not explicit Assumptions lead to implications – theories have consequences! Theories can explain some things about some people, but can never explain everything! A word about “proof” in the social sciences (wherein Dr. B rants….)

Theories as Tools All theories have weaknesses and holes Use them to understand and frame our work with youth Examine strengths of each theory and use them to implement program design Outcomes-based programs = start with theory = easier measurement of outcomes = increased funding opportunity

Let’s Discuss The Kitchen Utensils group contributed a lot of content to the wiki this week on theories and frameworks that underlie positive youth development (check it out if you haven’t!). Consider the following: Participation seems to be the gateway to getting youth to experience the other rings of engagement. It is easily argued that communities with lower incomes have lower opportunities and thus lower participation rates. Also, research shows that participation rates after age 12 drop and remain low through adolescence. As youth professionals, how can we offer engaging opportunities that not only are easily accessible in all communities, especially those of a lower socio-economic status, but also provide stimulating activities that encourage continued participation throughout adolescence?

Tripartite Definition of PYD Different theoretical models of the PYD process – Have empirical support – generally testable models having a degree of universality Relational Developmental Systems – individual-context relationships; when youth feel that they fit with their contexts = adapted behavior results (the opposite is also true) – Examples: Study of Purpose, Developmental Assets, Stage-Environment Fit, PVEST, Youth Transitions/Locus of Control, Resilience, Individual-Context Relationships Philosophical ideas about or conceptual approaches – Sound ideas that emerge from best practices – models or frameworks with little (or no) empirical support, or little evidence of universal applicability – Examples: Eight Features of PYD Settings, Targeting Life Skills, Developmental Assets, The Four Essential Elements, Five C’s (Confidence, Competence, Caring, Character, Connection), Community Action Framework of YD, Step it Up 2-Thrive, NIOST’s Key Elements, Rings of Engagement Programs aimed at promoting PYD – Links between program characteristics and PYD outcomes (e.g. Assets, 5 C’s) – Comprehensive, coherent, and integrated approaches to youth programs (Flay, 2002) – FLY (Facilitating Leadership in Youth), Positive Action Program Relational Developmental Systems Hamilton, 1999; Lerner et al., 2011

Macro Theories Learning Theory: Shaping behavior (doing “to”); rewards; withholding rewards; punishments; social learning (modeling, watching) Constructivism: Youth are hardwired for development; knowledge is constructed through experimentation and reasoning; “learning by doing” – including mistakes; development through exposure to challenge Collaborative Learning: Development through interactions with others; influence of “guides” and two-way feedback; construction through scaffolded experiences Relationship Theories: Primacy of relationships and connections between youth and adults (parental and non-parental); focus on larger order skills and competencies (empathy, acceptance, regulation, esteem) Sociological Theories: Importance of identity; focus on rules, norms, culture, and ways of doing things; issues of power, privilege, disparity

Youth Engagement Participation, Passion, Voice, Collective Action Framed via Strong Relationships (Sullivan & Saito, 2008) –1) Youth as contributors; 2) Developmental focus; 3) Reciprocal relationships FLY Program (Facilitating Leadership in Youth) –Progressive leadership responsibility –Dealing with and advocating for community issues/problems –Authentic decision-making responsibility –Connecting programs to families

Motivation - Needs Larson (2000) – Initiative –Meaningful engagement (or lack thereof…) –Result of: intrinsic motivation and concerted engagement that occur over time –Youth = in the present moment; Initiative = developed over time –Most likely to occur in structured leisure-time activities (sports, arts, hobbies, clubs vs. school or unstructured time with friends)

Motivation - Needs Ryan & Deci (2000) – Self Determination –Psychological needs drive self motivation and positive processes –Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness to Others –Intrinsic motivation is a key to positive development –Extrinsically motivated environments = amotivation, compliance, commitment –Environments that shape self regulation – internalization and integration

Resilience Ability to respond or perform positively in the face of adversity, to achieve despite the presence of disadvantages, or to significantly exceed expectations under negative circumstances Applies to both individuals (cognitive capabilities, self regulation, social support) and communities (social controls, civic engagement, dense social networks, interaction channels) Protective Factors – those supports present in a youth’s life that provide the protective “buffer” against risk behavior Protective Factors Risk FactorsRisk Behaviors

Community Action Framework Gambone, Klem, & Connell, 2002 Building Community Capacity and Conditions For Change Implementing Community Strategies to Enhance Supports and Opportunities for Youth Increasing Supports and Opportunities for Youth Improving Youth Development Outcomes Improving Long-Term Outcomes in Adulthood

Some Takeaways… There are MANY theoretical and philosophical approaches to youth work….take your pick In the end, they all cluster around a Relational-Developmental Systems model (individual + context) We do a really lousy job (for the most part) linking program characteristics with relevant theoretical and/or philosophical frameworks This makes it really difficult to know whether our programs and systems are effective (yes, I know our “gut” tells us that they are….) As YD professionals we need to better create the linkages between program activities and short/long term outcomes As always…..systems are everything