Publication year
2010
Citation Title
Quality at the point of service: Profiles of practice in after-school settings.
Journal Name
American Journal of Community Psychology
Journal Volume
45
Issue Number
4-Mar
Page Numbers
358-369
DOI
10.1007/s10464-010-9315-z
Summary
Observational data were used to explore common staff practices (pedagogies) at an after-school youth program to explore profiles of staff behavior in youth programs, and to determine how practices are bundled together as coherent pedagogies. In addition, the association between variables such as youth-staff ratio, program content, or age of youth and specific pedagogies were examined. Findings revealed three broad classes of pedagogy, and youth age and program content influenced staff membership within these profiles.
Key Findings
Six clusters of program staff pedagogies were found that could be collapsed into three types: positive youth development (characterized by positivity, engagement, and youth choice), staff-centered (supportive staff but low youth choice, planning, and reflection), and low quality (low positivity, engagement, and youth choice).
Staff in programs serving high school youth were more likely to use positive youth development pedagogies, while staff in programs serving elementary students were more likely to use staff-centered pedagogies.
Staff in enrichment programs (e.g., theater) were more likely to use positive youth development or low quality, while staff in academic programs and sports programs were more likely to use staff-centered.
Implications for Military Professionals
Collaborate with other youth program professionals to determine which pedagogies are most beneficial for military youth
Examine ways to create supportive and positive relationships with military youth involved in after-school programs
Implications for Program Leaders
Offer support to military youth that allows for youth engagement and youth choice
Create youth programming that is developmentally (age) appropriate
Implications for Policy Makers
Recommend professional development to youth program staff about the three pedagogies to improve staff behaviors, program quality, and youth outcomes
Program evaluations could include measures of staff pedagogy to allow for more informed funding decisions.
Methods
Researchers observed 599 after school program staff in 165 organizations across six states; these programs primarily offered arts/enrichment and academics, although homework, life skills, sports, informal time, and technology were also present.
Data were used from nine studies conducted between 2005 and 2007 for the Youth PQA Validation Study.
This article focused on civilian after-school program staff.
Participants
Nearly all programs involved youth grades four through 12; 58% of youth were female.
A total of 3,362 youth were surveyed.
No other demographic (e.g., race/ethnicity) information was provided.
Limitations
Staff members selected for observation may differ from those not selected which could bias the results.
Levels of youth engagement and participation were not examined and could have a potential impact on the results.
The after-school programs assessed may not be representative of all after-school youth programs; therefore, results may not be generalizable.
Avenues for Future Research
Explore ways to improve programs with low quality pedagogies
Examine pedagogies of staff in programs that serve military youth
Investigate ways to encourage military youth to engage in effective after-school youth programs
Focus
Civilian
Target Population
Population Focus
Abstract
A unique observational data set was used to explore quality at the point of service in after-school programs. Staff practices in after-school settings were represented on a series of unidimensional scales closely indexed to staff behavior. In order to account for heterogeneity of staff performances, pattern-centered methods were used to construct profiles of common staff practices. Results revealed six pedagogy profiles that were classified in terms of three broad types of performances delivered by after-school staff: (1) positive youth development, (2) staff-centered, and (3) low-quality. Staff membership in these profiles was not related to youth-staff ratio. However, results revealed significant differences between the profiles on the content of the offering and the age of youth in the setting.
Attach