Positive Youth Development
Lerner R.M. (2004), shares that youth are not problems to be solved but “resources to be developed.” The teen years are an important time to develop emotionally, physically, and socially. Military youth are not only experiencing normal teenage difficulties like puberty, academics, and social skills, but they are dealing with additional stressors due to their parents’ service. Lerner R.M. developed the Big Three in 2004. The Big Three PYD indicators focus on “positive and sustained adult-youth relations and life skill building activities” and provide opportunities for valued youth leadership roles within a school and community (Roth et al., 2016). Research consistently demonstrates supportive adult relationships as a critical ingredient for PYD. Youth require positive adults in their lives in addition to challenging skill-building activities. Considering the camp context, a camper might be more willing to climb the rock wall if they feel they are supported by the adult and group. The Search Institute found that only 29% of middle school students felt they had quality developmental relationships with their teachers (Pekel & Scales, 2018).
Additionally, Eccles and Gootman (2002) developed eight program quality indicators for positive youth development programs to include physical and psychological safety, appropriate structure, supportive relationship, opportunities to belong, positive social norms, support for efficacy and mattering, opportunities for skill-building, and integration of family, school, and community (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). The Search Institute developed Developmental Relationship (DR). DR says that PYD occurs when there are developmental relationships in place for young people to thrive (Search Institute, 2021). According to DR a thriving relationship includes expressing care, challenging growth, providing support, sharing power, and expanding possibilities (Search Institute, 2021). According to Search Institute, “developmental relationships are the roots of thriving and resilience for young people… through these relationships, young people discover who they are, cultivate abilities to shape their own lives, and learn how to engage with and contribute to the world around them” (2021).
However, a consideration for PYD professionals is the lack of a consistent definition of positive youth development. The former leads to inconsistent and hard-to-connect results (Roth et al., 2016). For example, it is hard to understand the cause and effect of programs when the context of PYD includes sports, after-school clubs, in-school clubs, church groups, extracurriculars, camps, and the like. Should camp contexts be grouped with PYD programs that occur in schools or programs that occur year-round? Also, researchers in the field have been unable to agree on what is the most effective tools or ingredients for PYD, although youth-adult relationships and supportive relationships appear in Eccles & Gootman’s (2002) Eight Program Quality Indicators, Lerner’s Big Three model (2004), Search Institutes DR (2021), and the 4-H Thrive Model (Arnold, 2018). I will highlight the 4-H Thrive model in more detail in the future as it provides a great framework for our work and combines the previous theories into an action-orientated plan. I hope the following provides insight into the research within afterschool programs and camp contexts as a PYD tool and how SEL can be a tool for PYD in these contexts.
Afterschool Programs
According to the meta-analysis by Durlak et al. (2010), afterschool programs (ASP) in the United States can create an environment for individual and social growth for young people when supportive adults and peers are present. The meta-analysis focused on universal school-based social-emotional development programs in ASP designs and found positive changes occur when personal and social skills were included in the program design (Durlak et al., 2010). When ASPs include more interaction, role play, teacher-led coaching, and structured activities youth gain higher achievement. The Durlak et al. (2010) meta-analysis emphasized that social behaviors, self-perceptions, feelings and attitudes, bonding to school, and school achievement scores were positively influenced by ASP.
Durlak et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis included 75 ASPs and determined not all ASPs are effective in developing youth and children’s social-emotional learning. Two relevant limitations discovered through the metanalysis were the lack of clarity on the amount of time needed for SEL within ASPs and what determines the quality of interaction. The final limitation of Durlak et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis is it is difficult to determine the direct cause for the success or failure of ASP SEL programs. Adolescents are highly involved in multiple ASPs, whether that is through a sports league, church, Girl Scouts, or a tutoring program. Multiple researchers (included in the meta-analysis) indicated that youth in their control group was participating in a different ASP program than the program that was being studied. This causes comparison difficulty and leads to unclear outcomes for students in the test group. For example, it is hard to determine if the context, instructor, length of the ASP, or other causes lead to gains in student competencies. While Durlak et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis pose interesting findings educators should take caution in assessing the findings as absolute, as even Durlak et al. found contrary findings and have encouraged additional research. However, while the causes might be unclear, the theoretical and practical contributions of increased positive outcomes are present for students.
SEL, a PYD Tool
When considering PYD indicators and SEL implementation there are serval theories that include social and emotional skills. National 4-H has developed a new 4-H PYD model known as the 4-H Thriving model. The model incorporates the work of Arnold, M. E & Gagon, R. J., Lerner, R.M., Search Institute’s The Developmental Relationships framework, and other researchers. The 4-H Thriving model specifically shares that positive emotionality should be included in 4-H programming to include 4-H camping experiences (Arnold, 2018). Adults can support a young person’s emotional response and management by creating relationships that are caring, challenge growth, and share power, which can lead to long-term outcomes (Arnold, 2018). The youth-adult relationship is one of three developmental contexts. A thriving youth engages in activities, learns through discovery, has prosocial interactions with others, sets goals, and manages their emotions (Arnold, 2018).
According to researchers Durlak et al. (2011), positive outcomes related to social and academic skills occur within schools when social-emotional learning (SEL) occurs. SEL is teaching a person how to manage and understand their emotions. A person manages their emotional response through setting goals, recognizing others and their opinions, establishing, and keeping friends, making responsible decisions, and handling personal situations positively and effectively (Eilias et al., 1991). Knowledgeable teachers who use tools to support students’ emotional growth and understanding saw an increase in academic motivation and engagement of students (e.g., Marchand & Skinner, 2007; Patrick et al., 2007). Research shows that responsive teachers who are attuned to students foster positive peer relationships (Chang, 2004).
The Collaborative for Academic, Emotional and Social Learning (CAESL) determined youth development programs should include self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decisions (2021). Fettig et al. (2018) demonstrated theoretical and practical impacts on where and how to incorporate SEL. Fettig and colleagues focused their efforts on an out-of-school environment for four at-risk males. The participants were in either kindergarten or first grade. The researchers used the Dialogic reading (DR) curriculum in addition to social-emotional learning (SEL) activities to discuss social experiences, perspective-taking opportunities, creating empathy for others, and building self-determination for at-risk boys attending an ASP for six months at a Boys and Girls Club (BGC) in the Northeast United States. The combined intervention method was hypothesized to improve the child’s ability to self-regulate what they experienced, heard, and read through a 6-month weekly club.
Fettig et al. (2018) case study mapped the DR curriculum onto SEL core Competencies using the CAESL design. CAESL identifies problem-solving, turn-taking, and providing positive peer feedback as important for elementary students. Throughout the Fettig et al. (2018) study, the researchers measured how many conflicts occurred and who solved the conflict during the supervised play. After the club, the children’s problem-solving skills improved by 6% and their turn-taking skills by 10%. While the quantitative results were limited, the qualitative family interviews showcased gains as parental accounts shared improvement of their children’s emotional regulations.
The Fettig et al. (2018) case study provides support and reinforces previous research conducted in schools, for both DR curriculum and SEL. However, two major limitations were the cohort size of four children and the lack of a cohort for comparison. The case study did not provide definitive results due to its size and lack of research-based comparisons.
Future researchers can use Fettig et al. (2018) theory of mapping DR curriculum onto SEL interventions for at-risk youth in an afterschool program. An additional theoretical contribution is that a student’s academic success and self-regulation skills can be supported by literacy and emotional-learning experiences in an afterschool club. For example, programs that follow a similar shared reading intervention, in theory, will reinforce literacy, self-regulation, and social-emotional learning for students. A practical contribution is that educators and youth professionals can implement either or both DR curriculums and SEL into their programming, especially when working with at-risk children.
At-risk Camp Impact
Researchers Carpide Los Pinos, Soto, Conty, and Serrano (2020) highlight that SEL can have an impact on at-risk youth in a camp setting. The researchers studied 113 at-risk adolescents (average age was 13.81) who attended a 2-week camp and 59% of the sample size were male (Carpio de Los Pinos et al., 2020). In the region of Spain being studied, 34.9% of children lived below the poverty line. In Spain, 26.3% of families live below the poverty line (Carpio de los Pinos et al., 2020). Also, 41.5% of families cannot afford to go on a weeklong vacation, which would also include camp opportunities for youth (Carpio de los Pinos et al., 2020).
Youth received positive behavioral intervention supports (PBIS) and social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions for 2-weeks. The youth completed 15 whole-camp activities, individual sessions, small group sessions, and recreational activities. The various components focused on conflict, active listening, communication, social connection, and group identity. Additionally, professionals provided positive reinforcement and proximity interaction. Both PBIS and SEL emphasized the importance of building empathy for the participants. As a result of the 2-week camp, campers’ cognitive and emotional empathy improved. Carpio Los Pinos et al. (2020) concluded that summer camp might be a useful and appropriate tool for at-risk adolescents. Specifically, youth improved their perspective-taking skills and empathic concern for others. The previous was directly supported by SEL education, which addressed self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. These results are important, as people who have empathy and can regulate their emotions can protect themselves against less-than-ideal environments and are considered protective factors against social maladaptation. A practical contribution is to provide explicit SEL in camps.
Moreover, between 2000 and 2010 an unprecedented number of deployments, which is when a military member leaves their family and stateside job role for an extended time and typically serves overseas. During 2000 and 2010 military deployments affected an estimated 2 million children (Clary & Ferrari, 2015). As a result, the Army partnered with 4-H to provide direct supports to geographically dispersed (families who do not live near a military installation) military families, resulting in the Operation Military Kids (OMK) program. Since 2009 grants from the Department of Defense (DoD) have been available for military camps (Clary & Ferrari, 2015).
A literature review by Clary and Ferrari (2015) indicated camp settings have positive outcomes for military-dependent children’s growth related to self-esteem and social skills, and that camps provide a safe place to explore oneself. Perhaps most relevant for military families and children, camps are effective for bringing people together who share similar situations (condition-specific). Condition-specific camps might provide more positive change than attending a catch-all residential camp (Clary & Ferrari, 2015). Research on the military-dependent condition-specific camps found gains in independence, responsibility, teamwork, self-confidence, pride for parent service, and a more positive outlook regarding deployments.
Condition-specific camp examples explored through the Clary and Ferrari journal article included the following: the National Military Family Association’s Operation Purple camps; Camp Corral, 4-H deployment and reintegration camps, and the 4-H military teen adventure camps. The previous all focus` on supporting children through deployment-related experiences (preparing for a parent to leave, return, or ongoing deployment). Research on the previous camps found gains in independence, responsibility, teamwork, self-confidence, pride for parent service, and a more positive outlook regarding deployments. However, not all camp designs included direct SEL instruction or training on SEL for staff. While topics that are covered in the SEL competencies are woven into the camp design not all camps followed an SEL curriculum or designated time for related discussions. The support for SEL has been well described and generally supported by Clary and Ferrari (2015), Durlak et al. (2010), and Westrich and Pope (2018).
References
Arnold. (2018). From Context to Outcomes: A Thriving Model for 4-H Youth Development Programs. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension., 6(1), 141–160.
Carpio de los Pinos, C., Soto, A. G., Martín Conty, J. L., & Serrano, R. C. (2020). Summer Camp: Enhancing Empathy Through Positive Behavior and Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of Experiential Education,43(4),398–415. https://doi-org.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/10.1177/1053825920923382
Chang, L. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Development Psychology, 40(5), 691-702.
Christy D. Clary, & Theresa M. Ferrari. (2015). Communication, Coping, and Connections: Campers’ and Parents’ Perspectives of Self-Efficacy and Benefits of Participation in Deployment Support Camps. Journal of Youth Development, 10(2), 31–54. https://doi-org.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/10.5195/jyd.2015.407
Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115-152.
Durlak J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor R. D., & Schellinger K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi-org.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eccles. (2002). Chapter 4: Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. Review of Research in Education., 26(1). https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X026001113
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fettig, A., Cook, A. L., Morizio, L., Gould, K., & Brodsky, L. (2018). Using Dialogic Reading Strategies to Promote Social-Emotional Skills for Young Students: An Exploratory Case Study in an After-School Program. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16(4), 436–448.
Lerner, R. M., (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among America’s youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lerner, R.M., Wang, J., Chase, P.A., Gutierrez, A. S., Harris, E. M. Rubin, R. O., & R. O. & Yalin, C. (2014). Using relational developmental systems theory to link program goals, activities, and outcomes: The sample case of the 4H Study of Positive Youth Development. New Directions for Youth Development, 144, 17-27.
Marchand, G. & Skinner, E. A. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academic help-seeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 65-82.
Patrick, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83-98.
Pekel, K., & Scales, P. C. (2018, February 14). Remember the Relationships: The Missing Link that Makes SEL Measures More Understandable and Actionable [Web log post]. Retrieved February 28, 2021, from https://measuringsel.casel.org/remember-relationships-missing-link-makes-sel-measures-understandable-actionable/.
Search Institute. (2021). Developmental Relationships Workbook. In Search Institute’s 4-H PYD Academy Introduction to Developmental Relationships. Search Institute.
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2021). Sel: What are the core competence areas and where are they promoted?. https://casel.org/sel-framework/
International Network for Education in Emergencies. (2016). Psychosocial Support and Social and Emotional Learning for Children and Youth in Emergency Settings. https://inee.org/resources/inee-background-paper-psychosocial-support-and-social-emotional-learning-children-youth
4-H Army Warrior Youth Camps: Kansas State University, 4-H Military Partnerships Project; Vitaliy Kroychick 1810 Kerr Drive, A203 Edwards Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. vitaliykroy@ksu.edu 720-394-4196