In after-school programs, skill-building is a holistic process by which adolescents—guided by adults—achieve mastery. Developmental theories such as Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model position youth as active learners; however, little is known about the specific actions youth use to enhance their learning during skill-building opportunities. Qualitative analysis of 49 semi-structured observations of enrichment activities at a high-quality after-school program showed that adolescents used four types of actions while completing a project: inquiry, contribution, self-regulation, and peer education. These behaviors indicated youths’ level of cognitive engagement. Instructors’ practices related to questioning, monitoring, group management, and sharing control demonstrate the range of instructional practices that can be used in response to teens’ use of the four types of learning actions. This study presents a theoretical model of the skill-building process that illustrates how teens’ behaviors interact with staff practices and the demands of project-based learning.
BartkoW. T. (2005). The A-B-Cs of engagement in out-of-school time programs. New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 109-120.
2.
BensonP. L. (2003). Developmental assets and asset-building community: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In LernerR. M.BensonP. L. (Eds.), Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice (pp. 19-43). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
3.
BowieL.GarretS.KinukawaA.McKinneyK.MooreK.ReddK.. . . WilsonB. (2006). Program implementation: What do we know. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
4.
BronfenbrennerU. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In FriedmanS. L.WachsT. D. (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3-28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
5.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
7.
DawesN.LarsonR. (2011). How youth get engaged: Grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs. Developmental Psychology, 47, 259-269.
8.
DworkinJ.LarsonR.HansenD. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17-26.
9.
EcclesJ. S.GootmanJ. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10.
EcclesJ. S.MidgleyC. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In AmesR. E.AmesC. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
EmersonR.FretzR.ShawL. (1995). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
13.
GrossmanJ.GoldsmithJ.SheldonJ.ArbretonA. (2009). Assessing after-school settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 121, 89-108.
14.
HamiltonS.HamiltonM.PittmanK. (2004). Principles for youth development. In HamiltonS.HamiltonM. (Eds.), The youth development handbook: Coming of age in American Communities (pp. 3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
LarsonR.HansenD.WalkerK. (2005). Everybody’s gotta give: Development of initiative and teamwork within a youth program. In MahoneyJ.LarsonR.EcclesJ. (Eds.), Organized activities as contest of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 159-183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
LarsonR.JarrettR.HansenD.PearceN.SullivanP.WalkerK.. . . WoodD. (2004). Organized youth activities as contexts for positive development. In LinleyA.JosephS. (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice: From research to application (pp. 540-560). New York, NY: Wiley.
17.
LarsonR.WalkerK. (2006). Learning about the “real world” in an urban arts youth program. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 244-268.
18.
LarsonR.WalkerK. (2010). Dilemmas in practice: Challenges to program quality encountered by youth program leaders. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 338-349.
19.
LarsonR.WalkerK.PearceN. (2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-driven youth programs: Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 57-74.
PostM.LittleP. (2005). Youth engaged for action. Prevention Researcher, 12, 7-9.
22.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
ShernoffD.VandellD. (2007). Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 891-903. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9183-5
24.
SilvermanD. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
25.
SmithC.HallmanS.HillakerB.SugarS.McGovernG.DevaneyE. (2012). Development and early validation evidence for an observational measure of high quality instructional practice for science, technology, engineering and mathematics in out-of-school time settings: The STEM supplement to the Youth Program Quality Assessment. Washington, DC: Forum for Youth Investment.
26.
SmithC.HohmanC. (2005). High/Scope youth PQA technical report: Full findings from the Youth PQA Validation Study. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope.
27.
TraceyA.SurrW.RicherA. (2012). The assessment of the Afterschool Program Practices Tool (APT): Findings from the APT validation study. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
28.
VanceF. (2012). Overlooking the obvious: Content-based skill-building in an after-school program (Unpublished manuscript). School of Education, University of California, Irvine.
29.
VandellD. L.ReisnerE. R.BrownB. B.DadismanK.PierceK. M.LeeD.PechmanE. M. (2005, March). The study of promising after-school programs: Examination of intermediate outcomes in year 2. Retrieved from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: http://childcare.wceruw.org/pdf/pp/year_2_report_final.pdf
30.
VandellD. L.ShernoffD.PierceK.BoltD.DadismanK.BrownB. (2005). Activities, engagement, and emotion in after-school programs (and elsewhere). New Directions of Youth Development, 105, 121-129.
31.
VygotskyL. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
WoodD.LarsonR.BrownJ. (2009). How adolescents come to see themselves as more responsible through participation in youth programs. Child Development, 80, 295-309.
33.
YohalemN.Wilson-AhlstromA. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 350-357.
