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