Developing the “Whole Person”
By Emily J. Anderson
Photos by Emily McDonald-Williams
Practitioners in the field of environmental education have a variety of personal reasons for pursuing this work. Many cite their desire to connect youth with nature, introduce youth to careers in the sciences, and generally, create an environmentally literate society. While we are deeply focused on these goals, there may be even more compelling outcomes under the surface. Environmental educators are creating successful, healthy, contributing members of society. In other words, we are supporting “whole-person development” through our rich educational programs.
While environmental educators may recognize these broader impacts on the youth they serve, we rarely design our programs to support positive youth development outcomes with intentionality. Nor do we measure these outcomes through evaluation and assessment. Rather, we are often highly focused on learning outcomes and meeting science standards. Designing environmental education programs within a research-based positive youth development framework and then measuring outcomes, not only adds tremendous meaning to our efforts, but also adds credibility and value to our field. If we begin thinking of ourselves as positive youth development educators, in addition to content specialists, our program outcomes expand, leading to greater organizational growth.
Positive Youth Development, or PYD, emphasizes building on youth’s strengths, rather than on the prevention of problems. Meaning, programs seek not only to prevent adolescents from engaging in health-compromising behaviors, but also to build their abilities and competencies (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). This approach suggests empowering youth in their own development through relationships with peers, mentors, family, school, and community. The research supports the importance and power of a holistic approach to youth development, comprehensively infusing youth programs with core PYD elements. These include opportunities for belonging, opportunities to make a difference, supportive relationships, positive social norms, opportunities for skill building, and integration with family, school, and community efforts (Sibthrop, 2010).
Case Study: Designing and Evaluating
4-H Junior Master Naturalist”
4-H is the nation’s largest youth organization with a long history of positive outcomes. One of the many characteristics that makes 4-H unique and adds to its strong reputation is that its programs are deeply rooted in positive youth development (PYD) theory. One of 4-H’s mission mandates is science and there are countless environmental education programs that fall under that umbrella. One such program is Oregon’s Junior Master Naturalist. As with other 4-H programs, Junior Master Naturalist was intentionally designed within a positive youth development framework: the Oregon 4-H Program Model. To measure the success of this design, participants completed evaluations for both environmental literacy outcomes and PYD outcomes. Junior Master Naturalist serves as a worthy example of situating environmental education programming within a PYD context.
Junior Master Naturalist is an experiential, place-based, science program. It targets underserved youth through after-school and weekend sessions as well as a four-day residential camp experience. Participants engage in six units of study: ecoregions, geology and soils, watersheds and water resources, forests and plant communities, wildlife, and marine science. Approximately 75% of experiences are field based, while 25% are hands-on classroom activities. All sessions are family-friendly and content is often youth-driven.
The goals of Junior Master Naturalist are to connect youth with their local landscape, develop a sense of stewardship, introduce participants to natural science careers, and improve environmental literacy. Additionally, following the Oregon 4-H Program Model, developmental outcomes sought are academic motivation and success, reduction in risk behaviors, healthful choices, social competence, personal standards, and connection and contribution to others.
Content goals for Junior master Naturalist are achieved through curriculum design and field experiences. However, developmental outcomes required consideration of several programmatic factors. These include 1) high program quality, 2) appropriate intensity and duration, and 3) healthy developmental relationships. It was important to program staff to ensure that not only would the curriculum and activities be of high quality, but the opportunity for youth to connect with one another and have positive adult role models were present as well. Furthermore, participants have the opportunity to pursue deeper study of topics they most connect with and are offered a wide range of field experiences, including camping, citizen science, service learning, and outdoor recreation. There is a continual focus on health and well-being, independent exploration, and making connections to their local communities.
In 2017, participants from three Junior Master Naturalist cohorts completed evaluations measuring several desired outcomes. The evaluation tool first asked participants to rate their feelings about their interest in science, their perceived competency in science, their interest in a science career field, and their desire to learn more about science. As anticipated, results demonstrated growth in all areas. Next, the evaluation measured positive youth development outcomes based on the framework used in program design.
Indicators of program quality included participants’ sense of belonging in the program.
94.9% reported feeling welcome
96.1% said they felt safe
90.9% said they felt like they mattered
Measuring the presence of developmental relationships included adults in the program expressing care, challenging growth, and sharing power.
98.6% felt respected by adults in the program
94.9% said adults paid attention to them
92.9% believe adults expected them to do something positive
While this is only a snapshot of PYD evaluation results from the Junior Master Naturalist program, it illustrates the tremendous potential of measuring and sharing the developmental outcomes achieved in environmental education programs.
Integrating Positive Youth Development in Your Program
One of the fortuitous qualities about environmental education programs is that short- and long-term developmental outcomes inherently occur whether we are intentional about positive youth development, or not. However, if you want to get more out of your program, challenge yourself to incorporate PYD principles during the planning phase of your program. Alternatively, for existing programs, consider self-evaluating with a proven PYD framework to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement.
The Oregon 4-H Program Model is a framework specifically designed for 4-H programs. However, there are other prominent models with broader application for use in a variety of youth programs. These include The Five Cs, Community Action Framework for Youth Development, and Character Counts!. According to experts in the field, however, the Developmental Assets Framework is likely to remain among the most useful approaches to positive youth development for the near future. The scientific depth and practical utility of this model provide extensive resources for assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation for programs serving youth and communities in a variety of settings (Arnold & Silliman, 2017).
The Developmental Assets Framework, developed in 1990 by the Search Institute, identifies a set of skills, experiences, relationships, and behaviors that enable young people to develop into successful and contributing adults. According to research, the more Developmental Assets young people acquire, the better their chances of succeeding in school and becoming happy, healthy, and contributing members of their communities and society. The list of 40 Developmental Assets for Adolescents, broken down by age groups, can be found on the Search Institute’s website (Search Institute, 2017)
Becoming familiar with the Developmental Assets and thinking about how you can support this development in your program’s participants is the first step to infusing a healthy layer of positive youth development in your program. Digging in to the research and consulting experts in the field will help to identify the best way to integrate PYD principles and design evaluation instruments that measure effectiveness. Perhaps starting by including several PYD questions in your existing participant evaluation will provide valuable baseline data to inform growth potential.
In summary, environmental educators are doing noble work with endless benefits for youth, ecological systems, and our society as a whole. It is important that we recognize the value in our work that often goes unseen and celebrate our, often, hidden successes. Youth in our programs are building confidence and independence, developing healthy lifestyles and pro-social behaviors, and becoming contributing members of their communities. While these victories are already something to be proud of, why not take it up a notch by putting some intentionality behind our efforts to reach even greater outcomes? While designing high quality environmental education, we should challenge ourselves to support development of the “whole person” by incorporating positive youth development principles. Not only will these efforts have lifelong impacts on our program participants, but they will support our organizations as well. Sharing evidence of positive developmental outcomes will help promote our programs, recruit more participants, and appeal to potential funders for increased financial support. ❏
References
Arnold, M.E. & Silliman, B. (2017). From theory to practice: a critical review of positive youth development program frameworks. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 1-20.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94-111.
Search Institute, (2017). Developmental assets. Retrieved from http://www.search-institute.org/research/developmental-assets
Sibthrop, J. (2010). A letter from the editor: Positioning outdoor and adventure programs within positive youth development. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(2), vi-ix.
Emily Anderson is a 4-H Youth Development Educator in Lane County, Oregon. She has written previously for CLEARING.