MoralDevelopmentattheCrossroads:NewTrendsandPossibleFuturesDanielLapsleyUniversityofNotreDameGustavoCarloUniversityofMissouriThisarticleintroducesaspecialsectiononmoraldevelopment.Weclaimthatthefieldisnowundergoing aresurgenceoftheoreticalandmethodologicalinnovationaftertheeclipseofparadigmaticmoralstage theory.Althoughresearchonprosocialdevelopment,moralemotions,andsocialdomaintheoryhas sustainedinterestinmoraldevelopment,recentadditionaltrendshavecontributedtoitsresurgence.This includesresearchinneuroscience,sociobiology,andsocialpsychology;broadinterestinmoral-character educationandvirtues;andtheappearanceofrecenthandbooksandspecialjournalissues.Wereview3 broadpossiblefuturethemes(earlydevelopment,selfandpersonality,andculture)ofmoraldevelopment researchandintroduceasetofnewcontributionsinthisspecialsectionasexamples. Keywords: moraldevelopment,moralidentity,prosocialbehaviors,antisocialbehaviors,cultureThestudyofmoraldevelopmentisenjoyingaresurgenceof theoreticalandmethodologicalinnovationthathasnotbeenseen insometime.Inthelatterdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,the topicwasdominatedbystagetheoriesinthecognitivedevelopmentaltradition,themostimportantofwhichwasKohlbergÂ’s theoryofmoraldevelopment.Indeed,foratime,KohlbergÂ’s researchprogramwastheleadingedgeofdevelopmentalscience asitwrestedthestudyofsocializationfrombehavioralsocial learningtheoryandconfrontedcrucialquestionsconcerningthe structureofreasoning,thenatureandsequenceofdevelopmental change,andhowtoassessit.TwoofKohlbergÂ’sgreatestworks, StageandSequence ( 1969 )and FromIstoOught ( 1971 ),were requiredreadingforeverydevelopmentalpsychologistwhocame ofageduringthoseyears.Moreover,moralstagetheoryspawned productivelinesofresearchthatcoalescedintoadiscerniblefield ofsocialcognitivedevelopmentthatgalvanizedagenerationof researcherstoinvestigatesuchtopicsasdistributivejustice,social conventionalandprosocialreasoning,perspectivetaking,interpersonalunderstanding,andself-development(e.g., Damon,1977 ; Damon&Hart,1982 ; Eisenberg,1986 ; Selman,1980 ; Turiel, 1983 ),amongothertopics.Thesearchwasonforstructuresand stages. Yetovertime,theconcernsofsocialcognitivedevelopmentin general,andofKohlbergÂ’stheoryinparticular,lostitsurgency, andforseveralreasons.Onereasonwasthegeneraldeclineof PiagetÂ’s(1965) influencewithindevelopmentalscience.Asalternativemodelsofintellectualdevelopmentgainedcurrency,there waslessinterestinusingPiagetianstageandstructuresasexplanatorymechanisms.Insofarasmoralstagetheorytradedonthe prestigeandauthorityofthePiagetianparadigm,thecaseforstage modelsinthemoraldomainseemedlesscompellingthemorethat developmentalsciencemovedawayfromPiagetÂ’stheory.Moreover,thestudyofmoraldevelopmentdidnotprofitfromthewave ofpost-Piagetiantheoreticalandmethodologicalinnovationsthat sweptdevelopmentalpsychology.Whilethestudyofcognition changeddramatically,thestudyofmoralcognitionwasstillpredominantlyamatterofcognitivestructuresdevelopingthrough stages( Lapsley&Narvaez,2005 ). Therewerealsosignificantempiricalchallenges,indeed,prima facierefutation,ofcrucialhardcoretheoreticalclaimsofmoral stages.Theinsistencethatstagesbedefinedasstructuredwholes, forexample,orthatdevelopmentalsequencebeinvariantproved difficulttosustainempirically.TheKohlbergteamwasinventive inresponsetothesechallenges,anditsempiricalsuccessesand influenceoneducationalandappliedpracticescannotbeoverlooked( Gibbs,2013 ; Rest,1986 ).Buttheserevisionsalsoreduced thescopeofmoralinquirytoanarrowsliceofthemoraldomain (e.g.,spontaneousproductionofmoraljudgmentsabouthard-case dilemmasconcerningfairness)thatnecessarilyputoutofbounds ormarginalizedotherfeaturesofmorallife(e.g.,moralemotions, character,prosociality)orofmoralformationinearlychildhood ( Lapsley,2006 ).Therewaslittlespecificationofhowthedevelopmentofmoralreasoningalignedwithotherfeaturesofthe developingperson,suchastemperament,self-regulation,selfidentity,orpersonality. Ofcourse,aresearchprogramcanonlybeexpectedtoexplain theterritoryitstakesoutforitself.Yetprogressiveprogramsmust notonlyresolveanomalybutalsoanticipatenovelfacts( Lakatos, Worrall,&Currie,1978 ).Whereasstrugglingprogramsmight normallylooktoalliedliteraturesfortheoreticalinnovationandfor possiblelinesofintegrationandgrowth,thisoptionwasnoteasily availabletomoralstagetheory,givenitsantipathytotheoretical approachesthatmightweakenthecaseagainstethicalrelativismor undulyemphasizenoncognitivemechanisms.Althoughtherewas EditorÂ’sNote. JacquelynneS.Ecclesservedastheactioneditorforthis article.Â—JSE. DanielLapsley,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofNotreDame; GustavoCarlo,DepartmentofHumanDevelopmentandFamilyStudies, UniversityofMissouri. CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoDaniel Lapsley,DepartmentofPsychology,118HaggarHall,UniversityofNotre Dame,NotreDame,IN46556.E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.DevelopmentalPsychology 2014AmericanPsychologicalAssociation 2014,Vol.50,No.1,1Â–7 0012-1649/14/$12.00DOI: 10.1037/a00352251
somemovementtowardaself-modelofmoralbehavior( Blasi, 1983 ),forexample,therewasotherwiselittleinterestinexamining themoraldevelopmentofcharacter,virtue,andpersonality,even thoughthesetopicsareprominentintheconcernsofethicists, parents,educators,andpolicymakersalike. Soforatime,itseemedthatmoraldevelopmentwasata crossroad( Lapsley&Narvaez,2005 ).Yethowoneevaluatesthe statusofafielddependsonwhereonelooks.Evenwhilemoralstagescholarscontinuedtoinvestigatethelimitsofstructuresand stages,scholarsfromotherresearchprogramsopenedupimportant linesofinvestigationinmoraldevelopment.Forexample,althoughthedistinctionbetweensocialconventionsandmorality haditsoriginincognitivedevelopmentaltheoryandgrewoutof certaindissatisfactionswithKohlbergÂ’stheory,itemergedoverthe yearsasadominantperspectiveonthedomainsofsocialknowledgeandtheboundariesthatevenyoungchildrendrawaround them( Smetana,1995 ; Turiel,1983 ).Theprogressivecharacterof thisresearchprogramisindicatedbyitsextensiontoincludea personaldomainofjudgment( Nucci,2008 )andtoanexplication ofhowdomainsofsocialjudgmentsworkinthecontextof parentalauthority( Smetana,1995 ),peerexclusion( Horn,2003 ; Killen,Lee-Kim,McGlothlin,&Stangor,2002 ),disagreement ( Wainryb,Shaw,Laupa&Smith,2001 ),andculture( Turiel,2002 ; Wainryb,2006 ). Inaddition,researchonmoralemotions,particularlyempathy, sympathy,guiltandshame,continuedapace,asdidresearchon prosocialbehavioranddevelopment( Eisenberg,1986 ; Hoffman, 2000 ; Lagattuta,2005 ).Muchofthisworkattemptedtoprovidean understandingofmoralemotionsinacomprehensivewaythat integratedbiologicalperspectivesongeneticsandtemperament withcontextsofsocialization,includingparents,peers,andculture ( Carlo&Randall,2001 ).Ratherthantreatmoralemotionsasone aspectthatisindependentofotheraspects(e.g.,moralcognitions, behaviors),itistheinterplayofthesevariousprocessesthat commandtheattentionofmuchofthisresearch( Carlo,2006 ; Eisenberg,Fabes,&Spinrad,2006 ). Theemergenceofthemoralselfofinfancyisoneexampleof thecomplexinterplayofearlybiologicaltendenciesandcontexts ofsocialization.Inwhatissurelyanunheraldedclassicarticle, Emde,Biringen,Clyman,andOppenheim(1991) arguedthatthe moralselfhasitsdevelopmentalsourceinbiologicallyprepared motiveswithwhichinfantsareborn.Theseincludetheinborn propensityforexploration,mastery,andself-regulation;thetendencytoinitiate,sustain,andterminatebehavioralsynchronyand regulatecaregiverbehaviorbyemotionalcommunicativesharing; andthetendencytoseekoutthenoveltomakeitfamiliar.These biologicallydrivenpropensitiesformanaffectivecorethatis progressivelyelaboratedwithinthecontextofsensitive,responsive parentingtoyieldmorallysignificantinfantproceduralknowledge aboutreciprocity,normviolations,andempathysharing.Although thismodelofinfantmorallearningdidnotgetmuchtractionatthetime, itnowseemsprescientofthe contemporaryinterestintheearly foundationsofaltruism,sociomoralpersonality,andthedevelopmentofconscience(e.g., Kochanska,1997 ; Thompson,1998 2009 ; Warneken&Tomasello,2009 ). Threeadditionaltrendshavecontributedtotherenewedvitality ofmoralityresearch.Oneisthatmoralfunctioningisincreasingly thetargetofresearchinneuroscience,sociobiology,andsocialand personalitypsychology.Arobustneuroscienceofmoralcognition, emotion,andbehaviorhasexpandedthefieldofplayinmoral psychology( Greene,2005 ; Greene,Sommerville,Nystrom,Darley&Cohen,2001 ; Sinnott-Armstrong,2008b ).Thereisincreasinginterestintheneurobiologyofempathyandsocialbehavior, ( Carter&Porges,2013 ; Nelson,2013 )andthebio-evolutionary basisofmorality( Brosnan,2011 ; Joyce,2006 ; Krebs,2011 ; Levy, 2004 ; Lieberman,Tooby&Cosmides,2003 ; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008a ).Indeed,fundamentalquestionsregardingtheevolutionary rootsandfunctioningofmorality,aggression,andaltruismcontinuetobethesubjectofresearchanddebate( Boehm,2012 ; de Waal,1997 ; Hauser,2006 ),althoughtheimplicationofthiswork fordevelopmentisfarlessclear. Amongsocialpsychologists,thepossibilityisraisedthatmoral behaviorisdrivenbyinnatelypreparedandaffect-ladenintuitions andthatmoralreasoningisposthocrationalization( Haidt,2001 ; Haidt&Joseph,2004 ; Haidt&Kasebir,2010 ).TheapparentÂ“new synthesisÂ”inmoralpsychologythatemergesfromsocialpsychology,neuroscience,andevolutionarypsychologyisthataffectis primary,judgmentsareautomatic,andmoralityplaysaÂ“binding andbuildingÂ”socialfunctionandinvolvesmuchmorethanharm andfairness( Haidt,2007 ).Theseperspectiveshavegenerateda usefulandconstructivereconsiderationoftheverytermsofreferenceforthephenomenonunderstudy( Gibbs,2013 : Haidt,2001 2007 ; Haidt&Joseph,2004 : Lapsley&Hill,2008 ; Narvaez,2010 ; Pizarro&Bloom,2003 ).However,thestronggroundinginnativismandfocusedresearchonadultsgiveslittlecredencetodevelopmentalmechanismsandlacksdetailsonhowintuitiveprocesses becomedifferentiatedacrossindividuals,contexts,andtime.Itis notsurprisingthatmoralityhasengagedresearchersacrossthe spectrumofdisciplinesgivenitscentralitytowhatitmeanstobe aperson.Itisalsonotsurprisingthatthisworkhasengaged developmentalscienceinsofaraspsychologicalexplanationisnot completewithoutspecificationofthedevelopmentaltrajectories thatyieldadultmoralfunctioningasanoutcome. Thesecondinfluenceisthepersistenceofvirtueandcharacter asexplicitgoalsofeducation.Moraldevelopmentalwayshas entailedseveralimplicationsforeducationalpracticewherethe goalwastoadvancestage-relateddeliberativecompetenceorthe formationofjustcommunities( Power,Higgins,&Kohlberg, 1989 ).Indeed,therewasmuchsympathyfortheÂ“BerkowitzruleÂ” thatanyadequatemoraldevelopmenttheorymusthaveconsequencesformoralformation( Lapsley&Hill,2008 ).Butwhat moral-stagetheoristsdidnotparticularlyvaluewasthelanguageof traitsofcharacterasthetargetofeducation.Thisapproachwas deridedforthearbitrarysamplingthatitencouragedfromaÂ“bagof-virtuesÂ”andforthepossibilitythatthemeaningofvirtuetrait wordsisrelativetoparticularcommunities.Afterall,whatlooks like integrity fromonevantagepointcouldlooklike stubbornness fromanother.HonestyinexpressingoneÂ’sfeelingsmightalsolook likeinsensitivitytothefeelingsofothers( Kohlberg&Mayer, 1972 ).Ifcharacterreferstothemoralqualitiesofpersonality,then itsexplicationforpurposesofcharactereducationwillrequirean accountthatiscompatiblewiththebestinsightsaboutpsychologicalfunctioningandwithwell-attestedmodelsofpersonality.Such modelswillrequireanaccountofcharacterthatincludesdevelopmentalspecification( Lapsley&Yeager,2013 ; Sokol,Hammond, &Berkowitz,2010 )Â—andonethatarticulatesthecomplex,multidimensionalelementsofmoralcharacter.ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.2LAPSLEYANDCARLO
Thegrowinginterestincharacterandvirtuesalignswiththe resurgenceofresearchonmoralidentityandmoral(orcare) exemplars( Blasi,1983 ; Colby&Damon,1992 ; Hart&Fegley, 1995 ; Oliner&Oliner,1988 ;seeHardy&Carlo,2005).Scholars havebeguntoidentifytheconstellationofcharactertraitsthat reflectstrongandcommittedactionsbyindividualsthatpushthe boundariesofmorality.Interestinresearchonmoralidentity initiallystemmedfromadesiretobridgethegapbetweenmoral understandingandmoralactionandtodrawattentiontotheroleof moralmotivation.Consequently,researchersadopteddifferent methodologies(e.g.,personalityinstruments,interviewswithnominatedexemplars)toconductresearchonadults(e.g., Matsuba& Walker,2004 )andadolescents(e.g., Laible,Eye,&Carlo,2008 ) withacommoninterestinsimultaneouslyaccountingformultiple dimensions(e.g.,cognitions,emotions,actions)ofthemoralself. Ifmoral-stagetheorywasthedriverofmoraleducationinthepast, charactereducationwillincreasinglymotivateresearchonmoral identitydevelopmentinthefuture. Finally,athirdinfluenceontheresurgenceofinterestinmoral developmenthasbeentheappearanceofnewhandbooksand specialjournalissuesthathashadtheeffectofrevealingthefield untoitself.The HandbookofMoralDevelopment ( Killen& Smetana,2006 )and HandbookofMoralandCharacterEducation ( Nucci&Narvaez,2008 )havedonemuchtosummarizetherich diversityofresearcheffortsinthelastdecade.Thesehandbooks followinthefootstepsofspecialissueefforts( Brugman,Keller,& Sokol,2013 ; Hart&Carlo,2005 ; Reed&Spoermer,2008 )tospur greaterinterestinmoraldevelopmentandtoreinsertsuchresearch intotheforefrontofdevelopmentalscholarship.TheNewCrossroadItisnowclearthatthestudyofmoralfunctioninghasbeen sparkedarenascenceofinterestacrossamuchbroaderspectrumof theoreticalandempiricaltraditionsandacrossaspectrumofpsychologicaldisciplines,includingthevariousneurosciences.Itis nowpossibletotalkaboutanewgenerationofmoraldevelopment researchthatfoldsintoitsdomaintopicsoflonginterestto developmentalscience,eventhoughthesehavenotbeentraditionallyconceptualizedasmoraldevelopmentconstructs.Theseincludetopicssuchasinternalworkingmodels,eventrepresentations,theoryofmind,autobiographicalmemory,self-regulation, temperamentandemotions,andselfandpersonalitydevelopment amongothers.Howtheseconstructsarerecruitedformoralfunctioningisapressingempiricalquestion. Perhapsmoreimportantarequestionsregardingtherelevanceof moraldevelopmentscholarshipforaddressingthepressingsocial issuesofourtimes.Violence,genocide,andwar;concernsabout environmentaldegradation;povertyandfamine;andthepersistenceofracismanddiscriminationincreasethedemandforrelevantsocialscienceresearch.Butitisalsoapressingsocialissueto understandbetterthedevelopmentalconditionsforflourishingand forwhatitmeanstolivewellthelifethatisgoodforonetolive. Theneedhasneverbeengreatertoreachbeyondthecurrent boundariesofmoraldevelopmentalscholarshiptoadequatelyaddresssuchissues,andtheseeffortswillrequirebroad,integrative, andmultidisciplinarytheoreticalandmethodologicalapproaches. Ourresponsetothesesocialissuesrequiresgreaterattentionifour researchistobeconsideredrelevantanduseful. Wewouldliketooutlineinbroadstrokemajorthemesthatwill confrontthisnewgenerationofresearchandpointoutsome intriguinglandmarksatthenewcrossroadofmoraldevelopment.EarlyDevelopmentItwouldnotbeentirelyaccuratetosaythatthenextfrontierof moraldevelopmentresearchwillinvolvetheyears0to3,given howfrequentlythisterrainhasbeentraversedinrecentyears, althoughitsimportanceforunderstandingawidearrayofmoral competencieswillcomeintosharperreliefintheyearsahead. Researchhasshownthatmanyprosocialbehaviorsarewellon displaybythesecondyear( Brownell,2013 ).Bythesecond birthday,childrensharetoysandgivethingsaway.Youngchildren cooperateandhelpothersreachtheirgoals,haveanunderstanding ofothersÂ’needsandintentions,andwillcomfortayoungersibling orattempttoalleviatedistressbyoffersofsympathyorhelp ( Eisenbergetal.,2006 ; Warneken&Tomasello,2007 ).Around age3,toddlerscandistinguishmoralandconventionalnorm violationsusingseveralcriteria( Smetana&Braeges,1990 )and cometothedefenseofmoralnorms( Vaish,Missana&Tomasello, 2011 ). Furtherexplorationofthemoralcapacitiesofinfantsandtoddlerswillcontinuetobeaprominentfeatureofthenextgeneration ofmoraldevelopmentresearch.Someofthisresearchisalready showingastonishingprotomoralcapacitiesinquiteearlylife,leadingtospeculationabouttheexistenceofaninnatemoralcore ( Hamlin,2013 )ornaturalpropensityforaltruism( Warneken& Tomasello,2009 ).Ofcourse,moraldevelopmenthasalongway togoandmustbuilduponthesenaturalpropensitiesthatinfants bringwiththem.Thechallengeformoraldevelopmentisto identifythecrucialontogeneticandcontextualvariablesthatrecruitthesetendenciesforsustainedmoralfunctioninginlater childhoodandbeyond( Thompson,2009 ).Ofincreasingimportancewillbethebiologicalturnthatisnowsoprominentinother domainsofdevelopmentalresearch.Forexample,investigations intotheneurobiologicalbasesofsocialbehaviorandofempathy anditsdynamicinterplaywithvarietiesofcaregivingandearly experiencewillhavestrongimplicationsforunderstandingthe epigeneticsofmoraldevelopment( Narvaez,Panksepp,Schore,& Gleason,2013 ). KochanskaÂ’s(1997 2002 )researchillustratesthecomplexinterplayofinfanttemperamentandqualitiesofearlycaregivingthat carvesoutdistinctivepathwaystoconscience.KochanksaandKim extendthisworkinimportantwaysinthespecialsection.Intwo longitudinalstudies,theseauthorsdocumentadevelopmental chainthatlinksinfantmutualresponsiveorientationtoeffortful controlandlaterinternalizationofbehavioralstandards.Butthere isevidenceofmoderatedmediationinthesetrends.Theinfluence oftemperament(effortfulcontrol)onrule-compatibleconductis lessprominentinfamiliescharacterizedbyanearlyhistoryof positiverelations.Putdifferently,theinfluenceoftemperamentis morepotentwhenearlycaregiverrelationshipsaresuboptimaland lesspositive. Althoughmuchoftheattentiontomoralunderstandinghas traditionallyfocusedonolderchildren,adolescents,andyoung adults,thereisgrowingattentiontoyoungchildrenÂ’sunderstandingofmoralevents.Thesemodelspresentaccumulatingevidence onthecapacitiesofyoungchildrentoattendtothepsychologicalThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.3MORALDEVELOPMENT
andmotivationalattributesofothers(includingtheoryofmind) andthemultiplecharacteristicsoftheirsocialenvironments.Based onthesocialdomainperspectiveandusinganexperimentaldesign,JambonandSmetanareportonagedifferencesinmoral evaluationsofwell-intendedharmandselfishharmscenarios amongyoungandmiddle-agechildren.Theirfindingsgenerally suggestthatbothyoungandmiddle-agechildrendistinguishbetweennecessaryandselfishharmbutthatolderchildrendemonstratedmoreforgivenessofnecessaryharm,referredlesstoprotagonistsÂ’negativeactionsinthenecessaryharmcondition, increasinglyappealedtothepositiveintentandaction(butonly whenpsychological,ratherthanphysical,harmisdone),and exhibitedbettercoordinationofcompetingconcerns.Overall,the findingsextendpriorresearchontheoryofmindandperspective takingandmoralreasoning(cf.workonprosocialmoralreasoning; Eisenberg,1986 )thatyoungchildrenarecapableofmaking somerelativelysimpledistinctionsofintentionsandconsequences (psychologicalvs.physical)forothersandmakejudgmentsabout thepersonalattributesofprotagonists.However,childrenclearly showincreasinglysophisticatedmoralunderstandingabilities acrossyoungandmiddlechildhood.Importantly,theseincreases inmoralunderstandingaredirectlylinkedtochildrenÂ’sincreasing sociocognitivecapacities,includingtheirabilitytosimultaneously considerthepersonalandsituationalattributesofmoralevents. Bridgingthelinksamongearlycognitiveandemotionalcapacities, temperamentalcharacteristics,andsocializationinfluencescontinuestobeofprimaryimportancefordevelopingmorecomprehensivetheoriesofmoraldevelopment.SelfandPersonalityThatmoralrationalityattachestoselveswithpersonalitywould seemacommonplaceexceptthatdevelopmentalresearchonthe moralpersonalityisonlynowgettinguntracked.Howdodimensionsofindividualdifferencescoalesceintoamoralcharacter? Onepromisinglineofresearchconcernsearlysociopersonality developmentandtheemergenceofconscienceandthemoralself ( Thompson,2009 ).Onestudyshowed,forexample,thatthemoral selfwasamediatoroftherelationshipbetweenearlyÂ“out-ofsightÂ”compliancewithmaternalrulesat25Â–52monthsandlater competentadaptationat80months( Kochanska,Koenig,Barry, Kim&Yoon,2010 ).Onetheorytracesthedevelopmentalorigins ofmoralpersonalitytothewayparentsscaffoldmorallysignificanteventrepresentationsindialogicencounterswithchildrenin earlylifeandhowtheseareturnedintoautobiographicalnarratives thatstructurethedefinitionoftheself( Lapsley&Hill,2009 ). Similarly,inresearchreportedinthisspecialsection,Recchia, Wainryb,BourneandPasupathishowhowmotherÂ–childconversationaboutprosocialandharmingbehaviorcanfacilitateachildÂ’s developingsenseofmoralagency.Moralagencyisoneofthemost importantnewconstructstoemergeinthestudyofmoraldevelopment. PasupathiandWainryb(2010) describedmoralagencyas theexperienceofintentionalmoralfailure,ofvisitingharmon another,forexample,withfullknowledgethatitwaswrongtodo so.Whenconfrontedwithmoralfailure,weconstructnarrativesto helpmakesenseofourmoralagencyandthesortofpersonwe claimourselvestobe.Inthepresentstudy,Recchiaandcolleagues showhowfeaturesofmaternalconversationcanstructurechildrenÂ’ssenseofthemselvesasprosocialmoralagents,evenwhen confrontedwithmoralfailure. Ofcourse,moralself-developmentisalifelongconcernwith particularresonanceinadolescenceandemergingadulthoodwhere itisinterwovenwithidentitydevelopment( Hart&Carlo,2005 2011).Althoughinterestinmoralself-identityissurging( Narvaez &Lapsley,2009 ),itisalsoprovingachallengetomeasurethe constructandtomapitsdevelopmentalcourse.Thesearenot unrelatedproblems.Inthespecialsection,Hardy,Walker,Olsen, Woodbury,andHickmanprovidenewtheoreticalandmethodologicaloptions.Onthetheoreticalfront,moralidentityisalignedwith theliteratureonpossibleselves.Onthisaccount,onedimensionof moralidentityconcernstheextenttowhichmoralityisfoldedinto oneÂ’sidealself.Theappealtopossibleselvestofleshoutthe conceptualizationofmoralidentityillustratestheusefulnessof integrativeperspectivesinframingmoraldevelopmenttheory.On themethodologicalfront,anewmeasureof moralidealself is proposed.Acrosstwodatasets,theresultsshowthatthemoral idealselfpredictsavarietyofmorallyrelevantadolescentoutcomes,possiblybecauseofitsmotivationalproperties.Weare morelikelytoengageinmoralaction,onthisaccount,whenour idealselfincludesacommitmenttomorality. Fromadifferenttheoreticalandmethodologicalapproach, Eisenbergandhercolleaguesdemonstratesomeofthestrongest evidenceontheenduringqualitiesofprosocialityacrosstime. Basedonherpioneeringlongitudinalstudyofprosocialtendencies,theseresearchersdemonstraterelativelystable,individual differencesinprosocialmoralreasoning,sympathy,perspective taking,andprosocialandaggressivebehaviorsfrompreschoolto 31Â–32yearsofage.Whilethesefindingsprovideevidenceof relativelystablepatternsofprosocialfunctioningacrosstime,the findingsalsoshowage-relatedchangesinthecomplexitiesand expressionofprosocialmoralreasoning.Evidencefornonlinear changesinspecificformsofprosocialmoralreasoningsuggestebb andflowthatmaybesensitivetochangingsocialdemandsand cognitivematurityacrosstime.Suchfindingssupportassertions thatprosocialmoralreasoningdoesnotcontinuallyincreaseand thattheremaybeapparentregressionsinsuchreasoning.These changesinprosocialcognitions,emotions,andbehaviors,andtheir longitudinalrelationsacrosstime,suggestanintertwinedconstellationofprosocialtendencies.AlthoughEisenbergandassociates donotexplicitlyendorseanotionofamoralselforcare-based identity,theydosuggestthatthereareindividualswhodevelopa prosocialorientationthatisrelativelyenduringacrossthelifespan. Attheotherendofthebehavioralspectrum,Capraraandhis colleaguespresenttheirscholarlyworkdesignedtounderstand aggressiveandviolentbehaviorsinItalianyoungadults.Their longitudinalstudyprovidesinsightsontraitsassociatedwithsuch behaviors.Theyfocusonasetofindividualdifferencecharacteristicsthatfacilitateimmoralbehaviors,namely,irritability(i.e., tolerationoffrustration),hostilerumination(i.e.,resentmentand tendenciesofillwilltowardothers),andmoraldisengagement (i.e.,disconnectednessofmoralsanctions,whichfacilitatesharm towardothers).Althoughthesetraitshavebeenidentifiedascorrelatesofantisocialbehaviorsinpriorresearch,theresearchteam demonstratesapatternofrelativelystable,reciprocalrelations acrossfourwavesofdata.Ingeneral,moraldisengagementplays acentralroleinmediatingtheongoinginfluenceofirritabilityand hostileruminationonantisocialbehaviors.Moreover,thefindingsThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.4LAPSLEYANDCARLO
providerelativelymoresupportforaforward-cascadinginfluence, ratherthanareverse-causalinfluence(i.e.,antisocialbehaviors influenceantisocialtraits).Theirfindingspointtotheenduring qualitiesoftheearlypresenceofantisocialtraitsonlaterantisocial behaviors.Howsuchtraitscanbeintegratedintoexistingmodels ofmoraldevelopmentandunderstandingwillundoubtedlypresent achallengeforfutureresearchers.CultureandContextAlthoughresearchonculturalandcontextualaspectsofmoral developmenthasbeenofinterestinthepast,theemergingtrendof researchinthisareahasanewface.Whereasinthepast,muchof thefocusofsuchresearchwasonthequestionofwhethermoral reasoningisuniversalacrosscultures,newlinesofinquiryfocus ontheculture-specificmechanismsthatpredictmoralfunctioning indifferentsocietiesandethnic/racialgroups.Muchofthisresearchisguidedbyculturaldevelopmentaltheorists(e.g., Super& Harkness,1997 ; Whiting&Edwards,1988 )whoemphasizethe uniquerituals,environments,customs,beliefsystems,andpracticesthatshapeandmoldmoraldevelopmentinchildrenfrom differentsocietalniches.Forexample,researchonprosocialbehaviorsamongU.S.Latino/ayouthdemonstratesthecentralroleof parentalvaluesandpracticesrelatedtofamilism(i.e.,valueofthe tiesandidentitywiththefamilyunit)asrelevantpredictorofsuch behaviorsintheseyouth( Knight&Carlo,2012 ).Otherresearch showshowindividualdifferencesintypesofprosocialbehaviors exhibitedbyKenyanchildrenareaccountedforbythesocial companionsandparentalchoreassignments( deGuzman,Edwards,&Carlo,2005 ).Theseresearchendeavorsmoveustoward understandingtheintrapersonal(e.g.,culturalvalues)andsocial contextual(e.g.,socialcompanions)featuresofculturalgroups thatarerelevanttomoralfunctioning. Buildingonthosepreviouseffortstounderstandtheculturerelatedprocesseslinkedtomoralfunctioning,BrenickandKillen presentfindingsthatpointdirectlytotheroleofculturalidentity andintergroupcontactinmoraljudgments.Basedonasocial reasoningdevelopmentalperspective,theseinvestigatorsutilize thetopicofpeersocialexclusionasameansofunderstanding JewishÂ–ArabrelationswithintheUnitedStates.Theirfindings werecomplexandshowedfairlysophisticatedreasoningandunderstandingamongasampleofU.S.JewishandArabyouth.In general,youthrejectedexclusionofoutgroupmembersbasedon concernsforfairness.However,suchexclusionseemedrelatively moreacceptableinhomeorcommunitycontextsratherthanin peercontexts.Theselatterfindingssuggestthatyouthareexposed tomixedmessagesregardingtheacceptabilityofoutgroupmembers,whichmayleadtovariabilityintheapplicationofsocial exclusionrulesacrosssituations.Ontheotherhand,andperhaps mostrevealing,theyreportedthatyouthwhohadmoreintergroup contactwerelesssusceptibletocondonesocialexclusionofoutgroupmembersacrossallcontexts.Finally,youthwhoreported strongidentitycommitmentandconcernforrelationshipswere leastsusceptibletoexcludingothersbasedonoutgroupstatus. Takentogether,thestudymovesresearchonculture-related(intrapersonalandinterpersonal)moralprocessesusingrigorousexperimentaldesignsandappliesthisapproachtoatimelyand importanttopicwithhighsocialrelevanceÂ—thatis,understanding culture-groupbasedsocialexclusion.ConclusionsThespecialsectionpresentsasampleofexemplaryresearchthat significantlyadvancesourunderstandingofmoraldevelopmentat atimeofinnovativetheories,methodologies,andresearchendeavors.Givenspaceconsiderations,therangeofpresentedempirical researchisnecessarilylimitedinscopebutcapturesseveralmajor currentthemesanddevelopmentsinthestudyofmoraldevelopment.Thestudiesrepresentadiverserangeofattemptstomovethe fieldbeyondtraditionaldiscourseonthedescriptivenatureof moralitytowardexplanatoryresearcheffortsthatadvancethe processesthataccountfordevelopmentalchangeinmorality.The worksexemplifytemperamentandtraitperspectives,socialization models,cognitiveÂ–developmentalapproaches,andculturally linkedmechanismsthatextendandexpanduponourbasicunderstandingofmoralcognitions,emotions,andbehaviors.Ofcourse, theseadvancescomewithaddedcomplexitiesandchallengesthat requiremoreco-constructivediscourseacrossthevariousmoralrelevantsubfieldsofstudyÂ—andthisspecialsectionisoneeffort towardthatgoal.ReferencesBlasi,A.(1983).Moralcognitionandmoralaction:Atheoreticalperspective. DevelopmentalReview,3, 178Â–210. doi:10.1016/02732297(83)90029-1 Boehm,C.(2012). Moralorigins:Theevolutionofvirtue,altruismand shame .NewYork,NY:BasicBooks. Brosnan,S.F.(2011).Theevolutionaryperspectiveonmorality. Journal ofEconomicBehavior&Organization,77, 23Â–30. doi:10.1016/j.jebo .2010.04.008 Brownell,C.(2013).Earlydevelopmentofprosocialbehavior:Current perspectives. Infancy,18, 1Â–9. doi:10.1111/infa.12004 Brugman,D.,Keller,M.,&Sokol,B.(2013).Meaning,measurement,and correlatesofmoraldevelopment[Specialissue]. EuropeanJournalof DevelopmentalPsychology,10, 95Â–105. doi:10.1080/17405629.2013 .769368 Carlo,G.(2006).Care-basedandaltruisticallybasedmorality.InM.Killen &J.G.Smetana(Eds.), Handbookofmoraldevelopment (pp.551Â–579). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Carlo,G.,&Randall,B.A.(2001).Areallprosocialbehaviorsequal?A socioecologicaldevelopmentalconceptionofprosocialbehavior.InF. Columbus(Ed.), Advancesinpsychologyresearch (Vol.2,pp.151Â– 170).NewYork,NY:NovaScience. Carter,C.S.,&Porges,S.W.(2013).Neurobiologyandtheevolutionof mammaliansocialbehavior.InD.Narvaez,J.Panksepp,A.N.Schore, &T.R.Gleason(Eds.), Evolution,earlyexperiences,andhumandevelopment (pp.132Â–151).NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress. Colby,A.,&Damon,W.(1992). Somedocare:Contemporarylivesof moralcommitment .Toronto,Canada:FreePress. Damon,W.(1977). Thesocialworldofthechild .SanFrancisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. Damon,W.,&Hart,D.(1982).Patternsofself-understandingfrominfancy throughadolescence. ChildDevelopment,51, 1010Â–1017. deGuzman,M.R.T.,Edwards,C.P.,&Carlo,G.(2005).Prosocial behaviorsincontext:AstudyofGikuyuchildrenofNgecha,Kenya. JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,26, 542Â–558. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2005.06.006 deWaal,F.(1997). Goodnatured:Theoriginsofrightandwrongin humansandotheranimals .Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Eisenberg,N.(1986). Altruisticemotion,cognition,andbehavior .Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Eisenberg,N.,Fabes,R.A.,&Spinrad,T.(2006).Prosocialdevelopment.ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.5MORALDEVELOPMENT
InN.Eisenberg(Ed.), Handbookofchildpsychology:Social,emotional, andpersonalitydevelopment (pp.646Â–718).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley. Emde,R.N.,Biringen,Z.,Clyman,R.B.,&Oppenheim,D.(1991).The moralselfofinfancy:Affectivecoreandproceduralknowledge. DevelopmentalReview,11, 251Â–270. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(91)90013-E Gibbs,J.C.(2013). Moraldevelopmentandreality:Beyondthetheoriesof Kohlberg,Hoffman,andHaidt .NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversity Press. Greene,J.D.(2005).Cognitiveneuroscienceandthestructureofthemoral mind.InP.L.Carruthers,S.Laurence,&S.Stich(Eds.), Theinnate mind:Structureandcontents (pp.338Â–352).NewYork,NY:Oxford UniversityPress. Greene,J.D.,Sommerville,R.B.,Nystrom,L.E.,Darley,J.M.,&Cohen, J.D.(2001,September14).AnfMRIinvestigationofemotionalengagementinmoraljudgment. Science,293, 998Â–1002. Haidt,J.(2001).Theemotionaldoganditsrationaltail:Asocialintuitionistapproachtomoraljudgment. PsychologicalReview,108, 814Â–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814 Haidt,J.(2007,May18).Thenewsynthesisinmoralpsychology. Science, 316, 998Â–1002. Haidt,J.,&Joseph,C.(2004).Intuitiveethics:Howinnatelyprepared intuitionsgenerateculturallyvariablevirtues. Daedalus,133, 55Â–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555 Haidt,J.,&Kesebir,S.(2010).Morality.InS.T.Fiske,D.T.Gilbert,& G.Lindzey(Eds.), Handbookofsocialpsychology (Vol.2,5thed;pp. 797Â–832).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley. Hamlin,J.K.(2013).Moraljudgmentsinpreverbalinfantsandtoddlers: Evidenceforaninnatemoralcore. CurrentDirectionsinPsychological Science,22, 186Â–193. doi:10.1177/0963721412470687 Hardy,S.,&Carlo,G.(2011).Moralidentity:Whatisit,howdoesit develop,andisitlinkedtomoralaction? ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,5, 212Â–218. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x Hart,D.,&Carlo,G.(2005).Moraldevelopmentinadolescence. Journal ofResearchonAdolescence,15, 223Â–233. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795 .2005.00094.x Hart,D.,&Fegley,S.(1995).Altruismandcaringinadolescence:Relationstoself-understandingandsocialjudgment. ChildDevelopment,66, 1346Â–1359. doi:10.2307/1131651 Hauser,M.(2006). Moralminds:Hownaturedesignedouruniversalsense ofrightandwrong .NewYork,NY:Ecco/HarperCollins. Hoffman,M.(2000). Empathyandmoraldevelopment:Implicationsfor caringandjustice .Cambridge,UnitedKingdom:CambridgeUniversity Press. Horn,S.S.(2003).AdolescentsÂ’reasoningaboutexclusionfromsocial groups. DevelopmentalPsychology,39, 71Â–84. doi:10.1037/0012-1649 .39.1.71 Joyce,R.(2006). Theevolutionofmorality .Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Killen,M.,Lee-Kim,J.,McGlothlin,H.,&Stangor,C.(2002).How childrenandadolescentsevaluategenderandracialexclusion. MonographsfortheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment,67 (4,Serial No.271). Killen,M.,&Smetana,J.(Eds.).(2006). Handbookofmoraldevelopment Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Knight,G.P.,&Carlo,G.(2012).ProsocialdevelopmentamongMexican Americanyouth. ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,6, 258Â–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00233.x Kochanska,G.,Koenig,J.L.,Barry,R.A.,Kim,S.,&Yoon,J.E.(2010). ChildrenÂ’sconscienceduringtoddlerandpreschoolyears,moralself, andacompetentadaptivedevelopmentaltrajectory. DevelopmentalPsychology,46, 1320Â–1332. doi:10.1037/a0020381 Kochanska,G.(1997).Multiplepathwaystoconscienceforchildrenwith differenttemperaments:Fromtoddlerhoodtoage5. Developmental Psychology,33, 228Â–240. doi:10.1037/0012-1618.104.22.168 Kochanska,G.(2002).Mutuallyresponsiveorientationbetweenmothers andyoungchildren:Acontextforearlydevelopmentofconscience. CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,11, 191Â–195. doi:10.1111/ 1467-8721.00198 Kohlberg,L.(1969).Stageandsequence:Thecognitivedevelopmental approachtosocialization.InD.Goslin(Ed.), Handbookofsocialization theoryandresearch (pp.347Â–480).Chicago,IL:RandMcNally. Kohlberg,L.(1971).Fromistoought:Howtocommitthenaturalistic fallacyandgetawaywithitinthestudyofmoraldevelopment.InT. Mischel(Ed.), Cognitivedevelopmentandepistemology (pp.151Â–235). NewYork,NY:AcademicPress. Kohlberg,L.,&Mayer,R.(1972).Developmentastheaimofeducation. HarvardEducationalReview,42, 449Â–496. Krebs,D.(2011). Theoriginsofmorality:Anevolutionaryaccount .New York,NY:OxfordUniversityPress. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199778232.001.0001 Lagattuta,K.H.(2005).WhenyoushouldnÂ’tdowhatyouwanttodo: YoungchildrenÂ’sunderstandingofdesires,rules,andemotions. Child Development,76, 713Â–733. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00873.x Laible,D.,Eye,J.,&Carlo,G.(2008).Dimensionsofconsciencein mid-adolescence:Linkswithsocialbehavior,parenting,andtemperament. JournalofYouthandAdolescence,37, 875Â–887. doi:10.1007/ s10964-008-9277-8 Lakatos,I.(1978).Falsificationandthemethodologyofscientificresearch programmes.InJ.Worrall&G.Currie(Eds.), Themethodologyof scientificresearchprogrammes (PhilosophicalPapers,Vol.1,pp. 8Â–101). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621123.003 Lapsley,D.(2006).Moralstagetheory.InM.Killen&J.Smetana(Eds.), Handbookofmoraldevelopment (pp.37Â–66).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Lapsley,D.,&Hill,P.(2008).Ondualprocessingandheuristicapproaches tomoralcognition. JournalofMoralEducation,37, 313Â–332. doi: 10.1080/03057240802227486 Lapsley,D.K.,&Hill,P.L.(2009).Thedevelopmentofthemoral personality.InD.Narvaez&D.K.Lapsley(Eds.), Personality,identity andcharacter:Explorationsinmoralpsychology (pp.185Â–213).New York,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lapsley,D.,&Narvaez,D.(2005).Moralpsychologyatthecrossroads.In D.Lapsley&C.Power(Eds.), Characterpsychologyandcharacter education (pp.18Â–35).NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDame Press. Lapsley,D.,&Yeager,D.(2013).Moralcharactereducation.InI.Weiner (SeriesEd.),W.Reynolds(Ed.),&G.Miller(Ed.), Handbookof psychology:Vol.7 : Educationalpsychology (pp.147Â–177).NewYork, NY:Wiley. Levy,N.(2004). Whatmakesusmoral?Crossingtheboundariesof biology .London,UnitedKingdom:OneWorld. Lieberman,D.,Tooby,J.,&Cosmides,L.(2003).Doesmoralityhavea biologicalbasis?Anempiricaltestofthefactorsgoverningmoral sentimentsrelatingtoincest. ProceedingsoftheRoyalSociety,SeriesB: BiologicalSciences,270, 819Â–826. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2290 Matsuba,M.K.,&Walker,L.J.(2004).Extraordinarymoralcommitment: Youngadultsinvolvedinsocialorganizations. JournalofPersonality, 72, 413Â–436. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00267.x Narvaez,D.(2010).Moralcomplexity:Thefatalattractionoftruthiness andtheimportanceofmaturemoralfunctioning. PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,5, 163Â–181. doi:10.1177/1745691610362351 Narvaez,D.,&Lapsley,D.(Eds.).(2009). Personality,identityandcharacter:Explorationsinmoralpsychology .NewYork,NY:Cambridge UniversityPress. Narvaez,D.,Panksepp,J.,Schore,A.N.,&Gleason,T.R.(Eds.).(2013). Evolution,earlyexperience,andhumandevelopment .NewYork,NY: OxfordUniversityPress. Nelson,E.E.(2013).Theneurobiologicalbasisofempathyanditsdevel-ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.6LAPSLEYANDCARLO
opmentinthecontextofourevolutionaryheritage.InD.Narvaez,J. Panksepp,A.N.Schore,&T.R.Gleason(Eds.), Evolution,early experiences,andhumandevelopment (pp.179Â–198).NewYork,NY: OxfordUniversityPress. Nucci,L.(2008).Socialcognitivedomaintheoryandmoraleducation.In L.Nucci&D.Narvaez(Eds.), Handbookofmoralandcharacter education (pp.291Â–309).Oxford,UnitedKingdom:Routledge. Nucci,L.,&Narvaez,D.(Eds.).(2008). Handbookofmoralandcharacter education .NewYork,NY:Routledge. Oliner,S.P.,&Oliner,M.(1988). Thealtruisticpersonality:Rescuersof JewsinNaziEurope .NewYork,NY:FreePress. Pasupathi,M.,&Wainryb,C.(2010).Developingmoralagencythrough narrative. HumanDevelopment,53, 55Â–80. doi:10.1159/000288208 Piaget,J.(1965). Moraljudgmentofthechild (M.Gabain,Trans.).New York,NY:FreePress.(Originalworkpublished1932) Pizarro,D.A.,&Bloom,P.(2003).Theintelligenceofmoralintuitions: CommentonHaidt(2001). PsychologicalReview,110, 193Â–196. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.193 Power,F.C.,Higgins,A.,&Kohlberg,L.(1989). LawrenceKohlbergÂ’s approachtomoraleducation .NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Reed,D.C.,&Stoermer,R.M.(2008).Towardsanintegratedmodelof moralfunctioning:Anoverviewofthespecialissue. JournalofMoral Education,37, 417Â–428. doi:10.1080/03057240802227643 Rest,J.R.(1986).Moralresearchmethodology.InS.Modgil&C.Modgil (Eds.), LawrenceKohlberg:Consensusandcontroversy (pp.455Â–470). Philadelphia,PA:FalmerPress. Selman,R.(1980). Thegrowthofinterpersonalunderstanding:Developmentalandclinicalanalyses .NewYork,NY:AcademicPress. Sinnott-Armstrong,W.(2008a). Moralpsychology:Vol.1 Theevolution ofmorality .Cambridge,UnitedKingdom;CambridgeUniversityPress. Sinnott-Armstrong,W.(2008b). Moralpsychology:Vol.3 Theneuroscienceofmorality .Cambridge,UnitedKingdom:CambridgeUniversity Press. Smetana,J.(1995).Parentingstylesandconceptionsofparentalauthority duringadolescence. ChildDevelopment,66, 299Â–316. doi:10.2307/ 1131579 Smetana,J.,&Braeges,J.L.(1990).ThedevelopmentoftoddlersÂ’moral andconventionaljudgments. MerrillÂ–PalmerQuarterly,36, 329Â–346. Sokol,B.W.,Hammond,S.I.,&Berkowitz,M.V.(2010).Thedevelopmentalcontoursofcharacter.InT.Lovat,R.Toomey,&N.Clement (Eds.), Internationalresearchhandbookonvalueseducation (pp.579Â– 603).NewYork,NY:Springer. Super,C.M.,&Harkness,S.(1997).Theculturalstructuringofchild development.In.J.W.Berry,P.R.Dasen,&T.S.Saraswathi(Eds.), Handbookofcross-culturalpsychology:Vol.2 Basicprocessesand humandevelopment (pp.1Â–39).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon. Thompson,R.A.(1998).Earlysociopersonalitydevelopment.InW. Damon(Vol.Ed.)&N.Eisenberg(SeriesEd.), Handbookofchild psychology:Vol.3 Social,emotional,andpersonalitydevelopment (5th ed.,pp.25Â–104).NewYork,NY:Wiley. Thompson,R.(2009).Earlyfoundations:Conscienceandthedevelopment ofmoralcharacter.InD.Narvaez&D.Lapsley(Eds.), Personality, identityandcharacter:Explorationsinmoralpsychology (pp.159Â– 184). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627125.008 Turiel,E.(1983). Thedevelopmentofsocialknowledge:Moralityand convention .Cambridge,UnitedKingdom:CambridgeUniversityPress. Turiel,E.(2002). Thecultureofmorality:Socialdevelopment,context,and conflict doi:10.1017/CBO9780511613500 Vaish,A.,Missana,M.,&Tomasello,M.(2011).Three-year-oldchildren interveneinthird-partymoraltransgressions. BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,29, 124Â–130. doi:10.1348/026151010X532888 Wainryb,C.(2006).Moraldevelopmentinculture:Diversity,tolerance, andjustice.InM.Killen&J.Smetana(Eds.), Handbookofmoral development (pp.211Â–240).Mahwah,NJ.Erlbaum. Wainryb,C.,Shaw,L.A.,Laupa,M.,&Smith,K.R.(2001).ChildrenÂ’s, adolescentsÂ’,andyoungadultsÂ’thinkingaboutdifferenttypesofdisagreement. DevelopmentalPsychology,37, 373Â–386. doi:10.1037/00121622.214.171.1243 Warneken,F.,&Tomasello,M.(2007).Helpingandcooperationat14 monthsofage. Infancy,11, 271Â–294. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007 .tb00227.x Warneken,F.,&Tomasello,M.(2009).Therootsofaltruism. British JournalofPsychology,100, 455Â–471. doi:10.1348/000712608X379061 Whiting,B.B.,&Edwards,C.P.(1988). Childrenofdifferentworlds Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.ReceivedOctober30,2013 AcceptedOctober30,2013 ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers. Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.7MORALDEVELOPMENT
IMPACT OF 4 H CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EDUCATION ON COMMUNITIES: A MEASURE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN 4 H ALUMNI By DEBORAH LYNN NISTLER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
2014 Deborah Lynn Nistler
To 4 H Youth Development Professionals everywhere : I hope this study show s what a difference you make in the lives of youth every day
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this study would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. First, I would like to thank my committee. Their invaluable input and support helped broaden my vision of the project and challenge me to dig deeper. My chair Dr. Israel has been an invaluable resource and patient teacher. His calm meticulous approach to research and life kept me on the path I would not have completed this project without his caring support. My Florida 4 H Legislature team is such a dedica ted group to the 4 H movement and the Legislature program. The support of Vickie Mullins and Michael Wickersheim keeps the 4 H Legislature program growing and evolving with the needs of the participants. It is the amazing program it is because of their p assion. They have cheered me as I worked on this project, I am very thankful for their support. I am so grateful for Lauren Smyrski and Ashley Avant for tracking down alumni and gathering emails. This project would not have been possible without their help. My NAE4 HA family has been such a support system through this process. They always seem to know when I need a text for support and have been some of my biggest cheerleaders. Special thanks to Neva Baltzell, Kim Gressley, Meg Tifft, Karen Gagne, Tom Manske, Kyle Worthington, and Scott Foster for the years of support and friendship. The idea for this study was sparked by their passion for 4 H and I will always be grateful. Finally, I need to thank my famil y Thank you to my mom and dad for introducin g me to Agriculture and a love of farm life, for teaching me the value of hard work, and how to meet a challenge head on and never give up. Thank you to my sisters for a lifetime of love and friendship. To my dear friend Neva Baltzell, who is always there
5 grateful to have her in my day. Thank you to my three children who let me chase this dream Austin has taught me to be passionate about life and country Beau who ha s taught me to be thoughtful and caring, and Hannah has taught me to love life and to remember your family. Lastly, I need to thank my husband. He has juggled children and 4 H projects so I can pursue my degree all with a smile and a hug at the end of th e day. He has been my best friend for 29 years and I am grateful everyday to walk this path with him.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 Citizenship and Service Learning Community ................................ ........................ 16 Citizenship ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 Service Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Civic Engagemen t ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 Social Capital ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 4 H Youth Development ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Research Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Significan ce of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 2 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................ ............ 28 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 28 Experiential Learning ................................ ................................ .............................. 28 4 H and Experiential learning ................................ ................................ .................. 33 4 H Youth Development ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 4 H Clubs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 35 4 H In School and After School ................................ ................................ .............. 37 4 H Camping ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 38 4 H Civic Engagement ................................ ................................ ............................ 39 Community Service Learning ................................ ................................ .................. 39 Commun ity Service Learning and Experiential Learning ................................ ........ 42 Civic Engagement Education ................................ ................................ .................. 43 Experiences That Lead to Engaged Citizens ................................ .......................... 46 Social Capital Theory ................................ ................................ .............................. 48 Dimensions of Social Capital ................................ ................................ .................. 49 Social Capital, Service Learning, and 4 H ................................ .............................. 51 Florida 4 H Legislature and Social Capital ................................ .............................. 54 Constructs of Social Capital ................................ ................................ .................... 56
7 Groups and Networks ................................ ................................ ............................. 57 Trust and Solidarity ................................ ................................ ................................ 58 Collective A ction and Cooperation ................................ ................................ .......... 59 Empowerment and Political Action ................................ ................................ ......... 60 Demographic Variables and Social Capital ................................ ............................. 60 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 62 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 65 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 65 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 66 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 Instrument Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 73 Internal and External Validity ................................ ................................ ............ 74 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 76 Data Collection Process ................................ ................................ ................... 77 Reliabil ity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 79 Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 Delineation of groups for the Analysis ................................ .............................. 81 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 82 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 82 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 88 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 Does service learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? ................................ ................................ .................... 88 Do the Florida 4 H Legislature program participants develop civic engagement competencies, indicated as higher levels of social capital into adulthood? ......... 89 Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than 4 H than those 4 H Legislature participants who did not serve on the planning committee? ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 93 One Way Analysis of Variance and T Test ................................ ....................... 94 Analysis of Covariance ................................ ................................ ..................... 94 Social Capital Predictors ................................ ................................ .................. 99 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 100 5 CONCLUSIONS, I MPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 125 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 125 Does service learning in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 125
8 Does the Florida 4 H Legislature program develop civic engagement competencies that will be expressed through higher levels of social capital into adulthood? ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 128 Social Capital and the Florida 4 H Legislature program ................................ 128 Do young adu lts who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than those who did not participate as planning committee? ................................ ................ 131 Social Capital Associations ................................ ................................ ............ 135 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 135 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 138 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 139 4 H Youth Development Recommendations ................................ .................. 139 Florida 4 H Legislature Recommendations ................................ .................... 142 Civic Engagement Education Recommendations ................................ ........... 143 Research recommendations ................................ ................................ ........... 143 Chapte r Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 145 APPENDIX A FLORIDA 4 H AND COMMUNITIES SURVEY ................................ ..................... 149 B IRB APPROVALS FOR PROTOCOL #2013 U 0472 ................................ ............ 167 C INITIAL SURVEY INVITATION EMAIL ................................ ................................ 169 D WEEK 2 5 REMINDER SURVEY EMAIL ................................ .............................. 170 E FINAL REMINDER SURVEY EMAIL ................................ ................................ .... 171 F RESPONDENT SERVICE PROJECTS BY CATEGORY ................................ ..... 172 G MEANS AND SE FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES ................................ ............... 173 H COLLINEARITY TEST FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES ................................ ...... 174 I CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES ................................ .. 175 J FREQUENCY TABLES FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS ................................ .......... 176 REFERENCE LIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 193
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Respondent and Non respondent comparisons. ................................ ................ 85 3 2 Reliability of Social Capital constructs ................................ ................................ 85 3 3. Factor loadings for Groups and Networks Social Capital index. ......................... 85 3 4 Factor Analysis on Trust and Solidarity Construct. ................................ ............. 86 3 5 Factor Loading for Trust and Solidarity with Trust Statement totals broken out using rotated factor model. ................................ ................................ ................. 86 3 6 Factor loading for Collective Action Social Capital Index. ................................ ... 86 3 7 Factor loading for Cooperation Social Capital Index. ................................ .......... 86 3 8 Factor loading for Empowerment and Political Action Index. .............................. 87 4 1 Youth Service learning experiences by group. ................................ ................. 101 4 2 Adult Service learning experiences by group. ................................ .................. 101 4 3 Mean and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables for Full Legislature group and Control. ................................ ................................ ............................ 102 4 4 Gender, Marital status, and educational level compared by two groups. .......... 102 4 5 Predictor variable age comparison of the two groups. ................................ ...... 102 4 6 One Way Analysis of Variance between groups for each construct. ................ 103 4 7 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 104 4 8 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for gender. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 104 4 9 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for educational level. ................................ ................................ .............................. 105 4 10 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for marital status. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 105 4 11 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of 4 H membership. ................................ ................................ ................ 106
10 4 12 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for membership in a 4 H Club. ................................ ................................ ............... 106 4 13 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Service as a 4 H member. ................................ ................................ ................ 107 4 14 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for High School Service. ................................ ................................ ........................ 107 4 15 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of participation i n the 4 H Legislature Program. ................................ ..... 108 4 16 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age, gender, educa tional level attained, marital status, number of years in 4 H, participation in a 4 H club, if they participated in service while in 4 H, participation in service in high school, and number of years they participated in 4 H Legislature. ................................ ................................ ............................ 108 4 17 Parameter estimates for predictor variables for each construct. ....................... 109 4 18 Mean and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables for all three groups. 109 4 19 Gender, Marital status, and educational level compared by groups. ................ 110 4 20 Predictor variable age comparison of the three groups. ................................ ... 110 4 21 Independent T Tests on Social Capital Constructs for each of the three groups (N=267) (Group 1 Non 4 H Legislature control, Group 2 4 H Legislature, Group 3 4 H Legislature Leadership). ................................ ........... 110 4 22 One Way Analysis of Variance between groups for each construct. ................ 111 4 23 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 112 4 24 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for gender. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 113 4 25 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for educational level. ................................ ................................ .............................. 114 4 26 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for marital status. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 115 4 27 Analysis of Covariance betwee n groups for each construct controlling for Years of 4 H membership. ................................ ................................ ................ 116 4 28 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each constr uct controlling for membership in a 4 H Club. ................................ ................................ ............... 117
11 4 29 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Serv ice as a 4 H member. ................................ ................................ ................ 118 4 30 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for High School Service. ................................ ................................ ........................ 119 4 31 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of participation in the 4 H Legislature Prog ram. ................................ ..... 120 4 32 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age, gender, educational level attained, mar ital status, number of years in 4 H, participation in a 4 H club, if they participated in service while in 4 H, participation in service in high school, and number of years they participated in 4 H Legislature. ................................ ................................ ............................ 121 4 33 Parameter estimates for predictor variables for each construct. ....................... 122 4 34 Reduced model analysis of three constructs which lost association after full model analysis. ................................ ................................ ................................ 123 4 35 Social Capital significance controlling for Groups & Networks. ........................ 123 4 36 Social Capital significance controlling for Trust & Sol idarity. ............................ 124 4 37 Parameter estimates controlling for Groups and Networks. ............................. 124 4 38 Parameter estimates controlling for Trust and Solidarity. ................................ 124
12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 ................................ 63 2 2 4 H 5 Step Experiential Learning Model (UC STEL, 2005). ............................... 63 2 3 Construct Model. ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 3 1 Social c apital constructs, related variables, and survey questions. .................... 84 5 1 Construct association with spurious variables. ................................ ................. 146 5 2 Construct association with spurious and mediator variables. ........................... 146 5 3 Empowerment and Political Action association with spurious and mediator variables. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 147 5.4 Integrating Social Capital into 4 H. ................................ ................................ ... 148
13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IMPACT OF 4 H CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EDUCATION ON COMMUNITIES: A MEASURE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN 4 H ALUMNI By Deborah Lynn Nistler May 2014 Chair: Glenn D. Israel Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The Florida 4 H Youth D evelopment program provi des youth with opportunities to develop life skills through several different delivery methods including clubs, school enrichment, camping, and teen civic engagement and leadership programs. The Florida 4 H Legislature program is a statewide civic engagem ent program offered to youth ages 14 18 each summer at the state capital in Tallahassee. Outcomes of this purpose to develop youth into productive, engaged citizens. Youth wer e also offered the opportunity to engage in leadership roles within the program, including active participation in the planning committee which meets year round. This study focused on alumni of this program and their engagement in their communities as adul ts. Social capital can be defined as the intangible resources of social connections and social networks that can be accessed and utilized to create action. Social capital places value on the social networks that exist within communities and between its c itizens. Social capital can be built through the interaction between youth and citizens within a community.
14 A n online survey was used to determine alumni current community engagement as it relates to t he five constructs of social capital : Groups & Networks, Trust & Solidarity, Cooperation, Collective Action and Empowerment & Political A ction. The survey was completed exclusively online and communication was through email, phone, and Facebook. The results of this study determined that service lear ning in 4 H develops competencies that will be continued into adulthood. Study participants that reported service projects as 4 H members also reported engaging in service as adults. This 984) experiential H. The results of this study also determined that 4 H alumni demonstrated higher levels of Empowerment and Political Action and Groups and Networks social capital tha n a compari son group of non 4 H persons Empowerment and Political Action competency building was associated with the Florida 4 H Legislature program. Similar competency building opportunitie s are not found in other Florida 4 H programs Spurious and mediator relati onships were found with remaining social capital constructs and appeared to be associated with years of 4 H membership, educational level, and years of participation in the 4 H Legislature program. The relationships reinforce experiential learning model be nefits as well as potential influences 4 H may have on educational choices as adults. Using social capital to measure community impact provides 4 H an opportunity to demonstrate public value as a you th development organization both in development
15 citizensh ip and communities. As a result of this study it is recommended that Florida 4 H integrate social capital measurement into its evaluation system.
16 CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT The Florida 4 H youth development program provides youth opportunities to develop life skills that help youth be successful as adults (Florida 4 H, 2010). Research indicates that these youth have developed competencies an d attitudes that should facilitate community engagement (Barnett & B rennan, 2006; Guion & Rivera, 2006 ). Limited research exists (Fox, Schroeder, & Lodl, 2003) as to whether 4 H youth utilize these life skills as adults through good citizenship within their communities. This study will examine the citizenship of Florida 4 H a lumni Specifically, it focuses on those youth that participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program Citizenship and Service Learning Community Community has been defined in many ways. Theodori (2005) defines it as place oriented process of interrelated actions through which members of a local population express a shared sense of identity while engaging in the common concerns of life (p. 662). Communities are comprised of citizens who work, live, and intera ct in a variety of ways. Social interaction is key in defining and understanding communities (Wilkinson, 1991). When visualizing community most imagine either a rural town or specific regions of a big city with diverse topography and people. A traditional view of community is a small town setting with community members shopping at the same stores and attending the same church on Sunday. Recent history has seen a change in the tra ditional structure of and concept of community itself (Warren, 1978). Communi ty structure is forever changed with the influence of news, media and social networks such as Facebook (Beaudoin & Thorson, 2006; McLeod et al. 1996;
17 Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). Suburban areas and small towns that were once relatively isolated from th e daily influence of metropolitan areas are now feeling the influence of a transient citizenry, which impacts leadership (Israel, 1982). There has been much discussion about the decline of community (Putnam, 2000) and a cal l to action to reconnect and re engage people with their communities. Along with this shift, communities are now viewed in the larger perspective; as interrelated and interdep endent on each other. This perspective uncovers new challenges for preparing cit izens to engage in these communities (Putnam, 2000). John Dewey (1897) began the conversation of citizenship and developing communities through his early education refor m efforts. He endorsed an improved model for citizenship education by prompting stude nt inquiry, encouraging social action, and broadening cultural perspectives. This perspective of citizenship has persisted and sustained itself through the last century even as the face of community has changed ( Camino & Zeldin, 2002 a ; Ethridge & Branscomb 2008; Kurth Schai, 1988 ; Luloff & Wilkinson, 1977; Munoz & Politz, 2007 ; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004;). Citizenship A citizen is defined as a member of a group, within a community, city, or country (Mouffe, 1992) A c itizen differs from a resident in the way each interact s within a community. A citizen should be informed and involved in local affairs and government (Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Educational models including those addressing citizenship, have historically be en developed to address the roles of youth in society (Kurth Schai, 1988)
18 Furthe ring the understanding of citizens includes defining communities and the at reflects the concept of a good community. This concept varies from culture to culture and changes as society redefines itself. The goal of good citizenship (Connolly, 1983) describes the way in which society strives to adva nce democracy. Creating the good community, Westheimer and Kahne ( 2004) argue, is dependent on levels of citizenship. They describe citizenship at three levels; personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented citizens. Citizens who exercise ci vil disobedience may also be included as good citizens if their motivations are the betterment of the community. Westheimer and Kah ne (2004) based their model of citizenship on levels of community engagement They evaluated y outh educational experiences a nd compare d them to their level of citizenship. They concluded that educational experience must embody a commitment to citizenship and further aid students to form beliefs and knowledge that will help democracy flourish. This goes beyond teaching youth to be good citizens; youth must have a commitment to their community and its citizens and believe in the importance of their contributions (Yates & Youniss, 1999) Educational experiences are an important component to cit izenship development (Coleman, 1988) This conversation began with Dewey (1897) who emphasized the ough social education and hands on experiences. Dewey was an early advocate for education that immersed a ch ild in social experience. Service l earning United States as a way for youth to explore the real world. In 1990 the National and Community Service Act provided a formal structure for this national commitment.
19 Service Learning The National and Community Service Act (National and Community Service Act, 1990) through curriculum integration and active participation in thoughtfully organized service (p.5). Service l earning gives you th the opportunity to apply knowledge in a real life environment; further developing skills and helping to develop nurturing skills such as empathy and caring. Service learning often uses the experiential le arning model (Kolb, 1984) in which youth plan a s ervice activity, perform the activity, and then reflect on outcomes and impacts within the community and beyond. Community service, conversely, does not often provide structured reflection activities (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Reflection opportunities provid e additional opportunities for competency building as well as increased community and social awareness. Community service learning combines service learning reflection with a clear connection to community (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000) Research often focuse s on student motivations for service or outcomes of the experience. Conrad and Hedin (1991) found that community service learning increases civic awareness and a heightened sense of responsibility to the community and the world. These experiences, especi ally when youth participate in reoccurring service opportunities will help connect them and commit them to community and make service a habit (Boyte, 1991). Civic Engagement Civic engagement e ducation is a special type of service learning (Enfield & Colli ns, 2008) Civic engagement education as defined by the American Psychological Association ( 2009) is service l earning that addresses specific issues of concern in a
20 community. Civic e ngagement can be expressed through volunteerism, voting, or getting i nvolved in political activism (Youniss, 2009) It also includes engagement in issues relevant to the local community that improve social well being (Wilkinson, 1991; Luloff & Swanson, 1995). Civic e ngagement like service learning, is hands on learning that allows y outh to apply knowledge to a real life situation (Enfield & Collins, 2008) It provides an environment for youth to increase competencies while dealing with governmental and non governmental community issues (Hunter & Brisbin, 2000) Research ers have looked at several aspects of citizenship and civic engagement. Youniss and Yates (1999) began to define good citizenship as a may be the act of neighborliness by raking the leaves of a neighbor or looking after a house in the neighborhood while someone is away. This act is public in nature and not directly related to private family activities. F urther research by Youniss (2009 ) operationally defines citizenship as voting behavior in early adulthood. Research to this point has focused on school based or community based educational opportunities, with the latter focusing on voting as an indicator of civic engagement. Preparing youth for engagement goes beyond ens uring that they register to vote and providing school based opportunities (Delli Carpini, 2003) Youth must be exposed to interaction within their communities (Luloff & Bridger, 2003). These include interactions with members of the public such as serving at a soup kitchen or food pantry. Interactions may also include youth attending and participating in county commi ssioner meetings or other local level meetings. These interactions will increase
21 understanding of their community, build rela tionships, and provide opportunities for service (Yates & Youniss, 1999) Social Capital Service learning and civic engagement with the additional interaction between adult citizens and youth can build (Putnam 2000). Social c apital is defined as intangible resources of social connections and social networks that can be accessed and utilized to create action (Lin, 2001). Social capital places value on the social networks that exis t within communities and among its citi zens (Put nam, 1995; Putnam, 2000) These relationships should be reciproc al in nature, meaning everyone involved mu st benefit from the interaction (Paxton, 2002) Social capital first benefits the individuals involved in the network (e.g., using a social network t o find and secure a job ) Social networks also provide sup port and friendship; through assist ance when help is needed, sharing information and support in times of strife (Gittell & Vidal, 1998) The overal l importance of social capital consists of its pos itive associations with individual and community based outcomes such as health, safety, and education ( Grootaert, Narayan, Jones, & Woolcock, 2004; Kawchi & Berkman, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1996 ). Social capital also has more widely f elt impacts within the lar ger community. Putman (2000 well connected individual in a poorly connected community is not as productive as a well connected individual in a well connected society (p. 20). Even individuals who lack st rong soci al connections benefit. For example, when a service club holds a food drive to benefit the local food bank, the individuals receiving the food benefit from the drive, as well as the individuals participating in the drive through further development of
22 conn ections with in the community and social networks gained within the service club ( Grootaert et al., 2004 ;Putnam, 2000 ) Social connections often begin with an expectation of mutual obligations (Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998) There is a clear expectation inherent in the relationship, i e. If I do this for you, you will return the favor. This is at the core of the community benefit understanding of continued investment. As social capital is built, trust is built between citizens. This trust evolves into generalized reciprocity; a general expectation of benefit based on a trust that this relationship exists in the community and it will be there when needed (Putnam, 2000). Social c apital can be measured by more than the number of social networks within a community (Putnam, 2000) home. It is a citizen stepping up to lead within a c ommunity. Social capital is also an indicator of community health ( Coleman, 1988; Verba et al 1996 ). Having an understanding of community health as well as how its citizenry impact that community can influence long term com munity success (Warren, 1978). This study will focus on a subset of citizens ac ross Florida. Measuring the level of social capital of the Florida 4 H Legislature program alumni or adult graduates of this 4 H youth program, described later, will provide a glimpse into youth programmatic impact on Florida communities. Social capital will be measured in terms of organizational involvement, leadership, and political involvement (Bourd ieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002). These measure s are conceived as indicative of citizenship competencies among adult 4 H alumni which are hypothesized to be bu il t through
23 learning experiences in 4 H youth programs Specifically, Groups and Networks Trust and Solidarity, Cooperative, Collective Action and Empowerment and Political Action are the measurements used to determine social capital levels and types that exist in communities (Putnam, 2000). This study will use these constructs as basic measurement tools. 4 H Youth Development The 4 H Youth Development non formal education program is national and available in almost every county in every U.S. state reach ing over 7.5 million youth each year (National 4 H Council, 2012 ) Young people are enrolled at county and community level s in 4 H. Youth have the option to participate in 4 H thro ugh several different delivery modes ( Florida 4 H Program, 2012) These include volunteer led community based clubs, classroom enrichment opportunities (in school program delivery) and after school 4 H programs. The program offers a variety of service le arning opportunities for youth aged five through 18 C ivic engagement educational opportunities are available for 4 H members in Florida beginning at age 11 and continue through age 18 (Florida 4 H Program, 2012 ) One program of distinction Florida 4 H L egislature offers youth 14 through 18 civic engagement education and activities as part of a week long program at the state c apital E ach year more than 190 adolescents participate in this program, often over multiple years. These youth are 4 H members w ho also have participated in service learning educational opportunities prior to their civic engagement experience with Florida 4 H Legislature (Florida, 2012 ). The Florida 4 H L egislature program provides youth with a unique opportunity to be immersed in the legislative process and to learn about decisions made at higher levels of citizenship. Evaluations of this program have indicate d that youth gain civic
24 engagement life skills such as self esteem, knowledge of government, knowledge of community, and em powerment. Evaluations also indicate life skill gain outcomes of leadership, teamwork, and social skills such as networking and communication (Florida 4 H, 2010) Barnett and Brennan (2006) looked at attitudes and com munity involvement among Florida 4 H youth including Florida 4 H L egislature participants; they found that leadership capacity and youth motivation were the strongest predictors of involvement in their communities. Youth motivation was operationalized as need for new ideas, need for better s ervices, enjoying politics, and public duty. Research Problem Scholars posit that youth currently lack the knowledge and skills to engage in civic activities effectively and have limited opportunities to develop competencies that will help them make thes e connections (Ng ai & Cheung, 1997; Vandell, Pierce, & Dadisman 2005 ; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004 ). Youth also are likely to have limited access to service learning and civic engagement educational opportunities that provide community competency building opp ortunities (Boyte, 1991; Youniss, 2002). Resea rch has not clearly shown evidence of a connection between service learning and civic engagement education and the dev e lopment of e ffective citizenry in adulthood. Purpose a nd Objectives This study will exami ne the citizenship levels of Florida 4 H a lumni with a focus on measuring social capital of Florida 4 H a lumni The study working hypothesis is: 4 H alumni who participate d in service learning experiences and civic engagement experience as youth through the 4 H L egislature progr am will exhibit higher levels on
25 dimensions of social capital than youth who did not participate. The following questions have been outlined for this study: Does s ervice learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Do the Florida 4 H Legislature program participants develop civic enga gement competencies, indicated as higher levels of social capital into adulthood? Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than 4 H than those 4 H L egislature participants who did not ? Significance of t he Study service learning competencies developed by Florida 4 H alumni through their 4 H experiences as youth. This competency development will then be used to assess social capital l evels of these alumni or graduates from 4 H as young adults. Making this determination will provide evidence as to whether 4 H develops citizens who actively contribute to their community. On a practical level, this study will provide documentation that m ight support educational programs in 4 H. Service learning and civic engagement learning opportunities are offered to adolescents but results are often not recorded because youth have completed the program. This study might provide evidence which support s the justification for continued educational opportunities for practitioners, families, and stakeholders. Definition o f Terms The following terms and definitions apply to this study: 4 H. A national youth development program offering life skill developme nt opportunities for youth ages 5 18 (National 4 H Council, 2012). Specifically, life skills related to community service learning, civic identity, value community, problem solving skills,
26 social responsibility and civic engagement, empowerment, knowledge of government, knowledge of community, and self esteem. Most youth select a project as the tool to assist in development of life skills. Youth experience 4 H in a variety of ways. Youth may experience through the traditional volunteer led club, through s chool enrichment, or after school programs. C ITIZENSHIP Is membership in a community and can be divided into three levels; personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) Full citizenship also refers to having ownership and responsibility for that communi ty (Sherrod et al. 2002; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). CIVIC ENGAGEMENT. Is defined a s active involvement in community activities both political and other (Youniss & Yates, 1999). This study focuses specifically on civic engagement education related to the legislative process as simulated through the Florida 4 H Legislature program. COMMUNITY SERVICE LEARNING. A method of learning that integrates meaningful service experiences at the community level that includes components of planning and reflection (Conrad & Hedin, 1991). FLORIDA 4 H LEGISLATURE PROGRAM. An annual civic engagement education program for youth ages 14 18. Youth are assigned mock roles as representatives, senato rs, and legislative leadership and spend four days in the Florida capital running 4 H, 2010). SOCIAL CAPITAL. I ntangible resources of social connections and social networks that can be accessed and utilized to create action (Putnam, 2000). Specificall y, this study will focus on five areas of social capital; G roups and N etworks, Trust and S olidarity, Collective Action C ooperation, and Empowerment and Political Action (Grootaert, et al. 2004; World Bank, 2000). Assumptions This study assumes that the model developed to identify variables adequately identifies all key components. I t also assumes that youth have opportunities to participate in service learning and civ ic engagement activities. Questions were developed to gather as much information related to youth experiences, but some experiences may not have been captured due to respondent understanding and interpretation of survey questions. It also assumes that par ticipants are honest and
27 reveal all relevant information. and respondent recall may not be completely accurate. Chapter Summary This chapter describes the idea of a good citizen, citizenship, and the educational opportunities used to achieve these outcomes; service learning and civic engagement education. It outlines the rationale and justification for the study which will focus on the impacts of community service learning and civic engagement educatio n in the Florida 4 H program on service in adulthood Youth participate in 4 H and have multiple service learning opportunities as pre adolescents and early adolescents and civic engagement opportunities as adolescents.
28 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Introduction This chapter will explore the literature as it relates to community service learning and civic engagement education. It will also explore social capital theory and the experiential learning model and constructs that relate these theories to the learning p rocess. Experiential Learning e xperiential learning theory to explain the competency building experienced by 4 H youth as a result of club service experiences and the 4 H l egislature program. Experiential learning th eory is built on the idea that knowledge gained is a result of experiences. The roots of this theory go back to early theorists of human development and learning such as Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, and Carl Jung (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Early concepts of experi ential learning also date back to John Dewey (1 897) who believed that learning is a r esult of the process of education that happens through experiences Learning through experience provides opportunities for reinforcement of concepts through demonstration simulation or experimentatio n (Hovelynck, 2001). N on experiential learning such as lectures do not provide these reinforcement opportunities. Experiential learning is learner centered while a lecture is instructor centered (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) Demonst rations of experiential learning would include activities such as group science experiments where the outcome is known and the activity provides a visual reinforcement. Simulation opportunities allow the students such as applying first aid knowledge to a simulated car accident. Experimentation provides learning
29 concepts through trial and error with limited introduction to concepts before learning begins (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 200 1) Kolb (1984 create d through the t ransformation of experience ; k nowledge results from the combination of (p.41). The experiential learning model provides a sequ ential approach to learning through experience and reflection (Kayes, 2002) Experiential learning outlines two methods for grasping experience : concrete experience ( CE ) and abstract conceptualization (AC). There are a lso two methods for transforming experience : reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE). These four methods of learning form a spiral or cycle where knowledge is grasped and proces sed, then applied (See Figure 2 1). It is important for the transforming stages to fall at the appropriate time to maximize the learning experience (Kolb, Baker, & Jensen, 2002). C oncrete experience (CE) in the experiential learning model is the act of engaging in the activity (Kolb, 1984). An example of CE in 4 H community service learning wo uld be collecting food items for the local food bank. During this stage of the model the individual is utilizing the knowledge and experience they currently have to complete the activity (Kolb, 1984) This may include putting boxes in local businesses an d picking up boxes as they fill up then delivering them to the food bank. This stage is experiencing it. An example of a CE from the 4 H L egislature program is debating a bil l in committee. The participant stands up and states the reason why this bill should be
30 passed based on research they have done and impact the bill would have if passed. activity. As a result of this activity, for the sake of example, the bill did not leave committee for further consideration. R eflective observation (RO) provides the individual the opportunity to understand what the CE means to them. During a reflective e xercise an individual looks at what happened during the CE and processes what happened. They also look at what went well and where improvement could occur when the CE happens again. In the 4 H community service learning activity youth at the RO stage pr ocess the activity by discussing what they experienced and who was involved (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) Using the food bank example, youth would talk about how much food was collected, difficulty in completing the project, and how they could improve collection n ext time. An other example of RO in the 4 H L egislature program is related to the bill that failed to move out of committee. After the bill fails to leave committee the participant has the opportunity to reflect on what happened and why. They have the cha nce to see how the information they collected and presented impacted its success or failure. A bstract c onceptualization is the third stage of the experiential learning cycle or o reflections and processes the effect the CE had on the individuals involved, the community, and themselves. At this stage in a 4 H community service learning activity youth discuss how it made them feel during the activity and after. They also process what impact the service project may have on the individual and the community. Using the food bank example youth could reflect on how much food the average family consumes during one
31 month and compare that to how much was collected. They may also reflect on how for the month. With this information they can begin to conceptualize need and can have a better idea how they might have greater impact next time. In the 4 H L eg islature program the participant working to move a bill out of committee for further debate would conceptualize how they can better prepare for bill presentation, provide a stronger argument for passage of the bill, or strategize how to use the system to r esurrect th e bill even though it received unfavorable response in committee. The fourth and final stage of the e xperiential learning cycle is a ctive e xperimentation It takes the abstract concepts in stage three and develops strategies that will be applied to the CE to improve or change the outcomes (Kolb, 1984) This may be in the form of goals or a formalized plan. The fourth stage prepares the individual to participate in the concrete experience again and have a different experience than the first time. In the food bank example they may plan different approaches to collection. They might include advance promotion of the food drive, additional boxes in other businesses or even cash donation jars. The group will also have a better understanding of how the service project is impacting the community. In the 4 H L egislature program the participant would research the bill to find better understanding of how this bill would imp act the community, state, and individuals. It may also include learning more about the legislative process; amending a bill, working
32 with the media or lobby groups, or bringing a bill to the floor of the house even though it received an unfavorable vote i n committee. Experiential learning occurs in many different environments and the process of moving through the cycle can vary greatly. Educators have found that learning llan & Cahoon, 1979; Topcu, 2007 ). Traditional school environments provide good examples of experiential learning and non experiential learning. Two specific examples of experiential learning would be a science experiment and an essay assignment. The sci ence experiment provides the student the opportunity to do the experiment (CE), observe the reaction (RO), record and reflect on what happened and then figures out ways t o complete the experiment and improve the results (AE). An essay assignment provides these same opportunities through writing, receiving teacher feedback through grades, processing strategies for improvement, then applying those strategies to the next ess ay. Examples of non experiential learning can be easily found in the classroom. An educator may use a different approach to learning how to do a n experiment through a lecture. This teaching approach will have no hands on opportunities and no or limited o pportunities to reflect or strategize. This approach reduces learning opportunities significantly for the student (Oxendine, Robinson, & Willson, 2004). Another example of non experiential learning is the traditional film or PowerPoint used to teach conc epts such as cell division in science. Students watch the movie and then are quizzed about
33 what occurred. Students often remember very little about what they watched (Oxendine, et al., 2004). Experiential learning theory has been widely tested through b oth qualitative and quantitative approaches. The experiential learning bibliography (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) outlines research from the inception of the theory in 1971 thr ough 2004 It outlines more than 1 800 research projects that provide strong support for the validity of the theory ( Adam, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005; Ko lb et al., 2001 ; Kolb & Kolb, 2008; Mainemelis, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 2002). Research in the field of 4 H youth development has provided affirmation of its application at all levels of the program ( Bour deau, 2004; Boyd, 2001 ; Diem, 2001; Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; Locke, Boyd, & Howard, 2007). 4 H and Experiential learning 4 H uses e xperiential learning as the primary approach to program delivery. The 4 H model is a five step model (UC STEL, 2005) adapted to incorporate subject matter education and lif e skill development into one activity (Enfield, Schmitt McQu i tty, & Smith, 2007). Step one is the experience. The experience is learner/member focused and activities are designed to experiment and practice ; learn by doing which is the program motto (National 4 H Council, 201 0 ). Educators are encouraged to allow the learner to complete the activity with limited assistance. Step two is sharing or reflection. Learner shares experience with the larger group and is an information gathering step. This step also involves writing down what happened and making notes on the experience (Schmitt McQuitty & Smith, 2010).
34 Step three is process and discussion. The full group discusses what happened and common themes from smaller group sharing are related back to subject matter and further discussed. Step four is generalization and connection (Enfield et al 2007). This section for them? This section also shifts to life skills used or gained completing the task and why these life skills are important to the subject matter and the learner. The educator fa cilitating the conversation understands what life skills are relevant to the activity and aids the learner in the discussion. Step five is applying what has been learned (Schmitt McQuitty & Smith, 2010). This step is a test of the activity. Did the learn er actually learn something? Can the learner demonstrate the new skill or knowledge? The skill is applied to a new experience and the model begins again. The five step model is described in Figure 2 2. he 4 H five step model is an additional step for generalization before the application of the next experience. This additional step allows the participant and the group the opportunity to apply new knowledge outside of the experience to the general communi ty (UC STEL, 2005). 4 H Youth Development 4 H is a national youth development program that was created originally as a tool for bringing agricultural research into rural communities (Reck, 1951; Wessel & Wessel, 1982). Early agricultural researchers, after the enactment of the Morrill Act of 1862 and later the Smith Lever Act of 1914, needed a tool to build credibility within communities so new practices and technology being developed could reach the farm ers who would use them.
35 Teachers in classrooms and school gardens provided these researchers and educators some of their first opportunities to showcase new strains of corn and other new technology within rural communities (National 4 H Council, 2010) Y outh and adults within the communities were asked to enter crops in local contest s adults took notice of the new technology and improved corn and began to pay attention. These first connections between the agricultural research and rural youth built the foundation for the community based youth program 4 H. Today 4 H reaches more than 7.5 million youth annually. 4 H is the youth development program of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and i s part of the national land grant system in each state (NIFA, 2013) Youth development professionals who admi ni ster the program at the community level are affiliated directly with the land grant university in that state. Youth are urban and rural and participate in 4 H in volunteer based clubs, in classr oom educational programs, after school programs, day and summer week long camp s and civic engagement and leadership programs. The primary educational method in 4 H is the experiential learning mod el (National 4 H Council, 2010). The 4 H motto, learn by doing, articulates the hands on learning approach at all levels of the program. H owever, not every experience is equally educational in nature (Dewey, 1938 ). There is a wide variation between 4 H e xperiences and how the experiential learning model is used. This is mainly due to experience level of the educator as well as the scope and length of the experience (Wilson, 2002) 4 H Clubs 4 H c lubs are led by adult volunteers. Learning opportunitie s include a year long project experience (Florida 4 H, 2010) Projects may involve an animal such as a dog
36 or horse a natural science or foods and nutrition (National 4 H Council, 2010) The project is utilized by the adult educators and volunteers as a tool to teach life skills (Hendricks, 1998) Youth who participated in 4 H clubs were significantly more likely to contribute to their communities and possess life skills critical for success as adults (Lerner, Lerner, & Phelps, 2008) These include all a reas of life skill development; caring, giving, working, living, managing, thinking, and living (Hendricks, 1996). There are mor e than 35 specific life skills and include such competencies as empathy, concern for others, leadership, self esteem, team wor k, self motivation, decision making, and critical thinking (Hendricks, 1998) Fox and colleagues ( 2003) found that the 4 H club program plays a role in the development of 32 life skills. Other research also supports life skill development through the club experience especially when participation spans multiple years (Boleman, Cummings, & Briers, 2004; Boyd, Herring, & Briers, 1992; Guion & Rivera, 2006; Holmgren & Reid, 2007; Ward, 1996). The club experience also provides youth with an opportunity to devel op leadership skills by holding club officer positions, being involved in the meeting planning process, and mentoring younger members (National 4 H Council, 2010). Community service learning projects are also an important part of the club experience. Youth can be actively involved in the selection, planning, and implementation of the service project and most clubs complete several projects during the year. These projects often include direct and indirect interaction with communi ty members and opportunities for leadership skill development. The experiential learning model is used for community service learning projects, but the level of structured reflection varies depending on the experience and training of
37 the volunteer leader ( Hairston, 2002; Stafford, Boyd, & Lindner, 2003) Leadership skills such as teamwork, self motivation, problem solving, and community contributor were highest when reflection immediately follows the act ivity (Stafford et al. 2003). Locke and colleagues (2007) found that 4 H youth who participated in service learning projects had a higher perceived level of leadership skills after completing the project even when reflection is not used to debrief the project. Community service learning would not be po ssible at the club level without the adult volunteer component of the program (Florida, 2010) The youth adult partnership in the club provides youth the opportunity to have behavior modeled by a non parental adult (Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002). Studi es have shown that this adult influence 1992; Rishel, Esther, & Koeske, 2005; Seita, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1992). Adult volunteers who assist in 4 H club educational experien ces for youth are screened, trained, and orientated by local county 4 H a gents. However, the level of training 4 H volunteers receive varies from county to county. Volunteer training programs have been designed and implemented in many states to help prepa re adult volunteers to properly move a club through the experiential learning cycle ( Diem, 2001 ; Enfield et al. 2007 ). Challenges that exist in a volunteer driven program as it relates to using the ex periential learning model are the consistency of the e xperiences and the teaching style of the volunteer (Astroth, 1996) 4 H In School and After School 4 H in the K 12 classroom is delivered in a variety of ways (Florida 4 H, 2010) Curriculum and teaching methods are dependent on the subject matter and are designed to complement the school system curriculum. Youth development
38 professionals, other Extension e ducators (Cooperative Extension employees associated with the land grant institution), and volunteers (including teachers) may serve as classroom educators for 4 H programs (Florida 4 H, 2010) Examples of subject matter are embryology, gardening, and recycling. 4 H in the classroom is designed to target one or two specific competencies or life skills (Hendricks, 1996) 4 H after school can be offered in the same format as in school programs or can be designed as a club experience with project, leadership, and service learning experiences (Florida 4 H, 2010) The after school club design offers the same life skill developme nt opportunities as the traditional club en vironment. 4 H Camping 4 H camping also utilizes experiential learning. A study in West Virginia found that using the experiential learning model increased camper competencies in life skill and leadership skill development (Garton, Miltonberger, & Pruett, 2007). Olson and Croymans (2008) used experiential learning to teach youth to make wise consumer choices and integrated community service learning experiences into the program. They found that youth benefited from the opportunity to practice making wise choices and developed ownership of the service projects. Although both studies used experiential learning as their primary educational delivery method each study utilized the model differently. The camping expe rience (Garto n et al., 2007) does not describe the experiential learning process utilized so it is impossible to determine whether the full cycle was used. The consumer choices study use d a simulation approach to experiential learning and offers clear refl ection opportunities and provides full use of the experiential model.
39 4 H Civic Engagement Florida 4 H L egislature program is a civic engagement program for youth between the ages of 14 and 18 and youth may participate multiple times (Florida, 2010) Flori da 4 H L egislature participants work with 60 70 youth created bills that model current or future needed legislation. Participants are assigned a role as senator, representative, lobbyist, or reporter. Bills are referred to relevant committees and work th rough the process with several making it to the house and senate chambers for full debate. Leadership positions such as speaker of the house and president of the senate are held by returning youth. The Florida 4 H state council president serves as the 4 H g overnor and has the opportunity to sign or veto bills that make it through both chambers successfully. Anecdotal information exists about 4 H alumni from this program that indicate youth who participated in this program continue to engage in their commu nities at multiple levels. Barnett and Brennan (2006) found that participants of this program utilized networks within their communities and perceived that they were engaged in community development. This study will attempt to document the social capital levels of these youth after completion of the program and beyond. There is a gap in the research as it relates to impacts on youth as they reach adulthood and whether these learned skills and behaviors persist. Community Service Learning Communities are comprised of citizens who work, live, and interact in a variety of ways (Flora, 1998; Warren, 1978) When visualizing community, the rural town or big city, with diverse topography and people comes to mind. Recent history has seen a change in the traditi onal structure of community and the concept of community itself
40 (Warren, 1978). Within a community a citizen is d efined as a member of a group and part of a city or country (Mouffe, 1992). To be a citizen an individual must interact within that city or c ountry. Further, citizenship is a sense of belonging to a group. Educational models have historically been developed to address the roles of youth in society (Kurth Schai, 1988) which play a role in introducing the concept of citizenship. Youniss and Yates (1999) looked at service and moral civic identity as it relates to citizenship. Their society vie ws as good citizenship. The study looked at the role that service learning plays on developing good citizenship. Youniss and Yates (1999) found that ; youth who participated in service learning experiences were more likely to continue to be involved in th eir community. (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) will ensure that communities foster democracy at all levels of society. study concluded that definitions vary widely, but they ultimately agreed on the concept citizens that resulted were directly related to the level of citizenship they modeled. They were personally responsible citizens, participatory citizens, and justice oriented citizens. The research found that experience in the local community, making a difference in the lives of others, and opportunities to develop their own vision of needs of the community were all important in dev citizenship (Connolly, 1983) can be des cribed as the way in which American so ciety strives to advance democracy and civic engagement in general.
41 Research on c ommunity service learnin g often focuses on student motivations for service or outcomes of the experience (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Conrad and Hedin (1991) found that commu nity service learning increases civic awareness and a heightened sense of responsibility to the community and the world. These experiences, especially when youth participate in re occurring service opportunities will help connect them and commit them to community and make service a habit (Boyte, 1991). In 1981 an exploratory study began to make connections between service learning experiences in high school and commitment to service in adulthood (Beane, Turner, Jones, & Lipka, 19 81) Beane and colleagues (1981) wanted to measure the effectiveness of community service projects in making those connections. The intent was to lay the groundwork and develop a methodology for future research by measuring tudes towards their communities. Some students performed service during high school and they were interviewed 30 years after the experience at a class reunion. Adults who participated in community service in high school demonstrated higher levels of commun ity involvement than those that did not. In addition those adults who participated in community service as youth also felt participation in those projects influence d attitudes in later life. Further research connects service learning experiences with acti ve citizenship in adulthood (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Batchelder & Root, 1994 ; Giles & Eyler, 1994 ). Youth who participate in service learning experiences are more likely to continue that service in adulthood than youth who do not. These youth are also more aware of social problems, have strong pro social cognitive development and increased decision making skills.
42 Youniss, McLell an, Su, and Yates (1999) looked at school based activities and their impacts on voting behavior and political activism. High school seniors who were involved in community service, debate clubs, and student council as youth were more likely to become voters and participate in pol itical activism than those who participated in activities like band, orchestra, and athletics (Youniss, et al., 1999) Their study suggested that service learning allows y outh to participate in an activity that focus es beyond the current time and helps you th look to the future. Community Service Learning a nd Experiential Learning S ervice learnin g experiences can have different impacts on its participants. Research connects high quality service learning experiences with increased understanding of politics a nd an empowerment to get involved (Billig, 2000; Melchior, 1999 ; Niemi, 2000). Service projects that are poorly structured might have a negative impact; reinforcing stereotypes of poverty and race and lead to disengagement of youth (Eby, 1998). When d evel oping service projects designed to enhance civic competencies, projects that include interaction with community members and, in particular, individuals that are diverse compared with the community service participants is important (Eby, 1998; Kretzman & Mc Knight, 1993 ). This interaction is most beneficial when the interaction is working with that population instead of functioning as an outsider (Eby, 1998). C ompetencies built through the service learning experience include: civic identity, a value of commu nity, problem solving skills, and social responsibility ( Billig & Brodersen, 2007 ; Eyler & Giles, 1997; Furco & Billig 2002 ). It can also include teamwork skills, conflict resolution, and leadership skills. Community service learning
43 provides a bridge be tween community building and hands on learning youth experience through citizenship activities (Israel & IIvento, 1995). Terry and Bohnenberger (2004) describe service learning as a developmental (Piaget, 1950) moving from level one, community service, which aligns with concrete operational, to level two with community exploration, which develops starting in concrete operational and moves into formal operational. Level three is community action which is fully developing civic importance of youth making this connection at an early age and continuing the learning process throughout adolescence. This mo del assumes service learning is completed using the experiential learning model. It reinforces that importance of reflection as part of the service learning experience. Terry and Bohnenberger (2004) outline civic engagement as a long term learning process clearly describing that service learning leads to civic engagement and community activism, but it must be learned through more than simple community service projects. Youth need ownership of the projects and opportunities for purposeful reflection at ev ery level (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003). process, taking in the environment, working through what they see, and then putting it all together to create their reality. Civic Eng agement Education Civic engagement educa tion distinguishes itself from community service learning by connecting learning to the government and the process of community change through the voice and action of its citizens. Both provide an important competenc y building opportunity and have different impacts on the level of community engagement.
4 4 Civic engagement has a greater focus on government related issues while service learning is oriented toward more general community need s Civic engagement education as defined by the American Psychological Association (2009) is service learning that specifically addresses issues of concern in a community. Civic engagement can be expressed through volunteerism, voting, or getting involved in political activism. It also includes engagement in issues relevant to the local community that improve social well being (Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Wilkinson, 1991). Civic e ngagement like service learning, is hands on learning that allows youth to apply knowledge learned to a real l ife situation. It provides an environment for youth to increase competencies in governmental and non governmental community issues. Specifically, competencies developed through the civic engagement experience include empowerment, knowledge of government, knowledge of community, and self confidence ( Camino & Zeldin, 2002b ; Obradovic & Masten, 2007; Torney Purta & Wilkenf eld, 2007; Youniss et al., 2002). Youniss et al. (2002) further defines civic engagement by focusing on civic competence, how it is developed, and how it is defined by real world standards. The authors looked at conditions of communities for youth in the 21 st century. A community today is much more diverse and global, and the lines of where a community b egins and ends are increasingly blurred. Youniss et al. (2002) also looked at the outside influences of things such as media and community based organizations and how they impact youth and communities. Youth who participate in civic engagement opportuniti es are more likely to continue civic behavior into adulthood ( Frisco, Muller, & Dodson, 2004; Obradovic &
45 Masten, 2007; Reinders & Youniss, 2006). Volunteerism and voting were most often correlated with civic engagement education, especially activities th at involved working with people. Youth who participate in these programs begin to develop connections to the community and build social capital and the benefits they receive from these connections such as finding a job or dealing with a natural disaster a re lessons that continue into adulthood (Putnam, 2000). These connections are first seen at the individual level through pe rsonal benefit, but eventually through increased connections wi thin the the broader public so that the broader public benefit increases (Lin, 2001). Youth have limited access to service learning and civic engagement educational opportunities which provide community competency building opportunities (Boyte, 1991; Youniss, 2002). Providing opportunities for youth to develop these competencies and validating the importance of these competency building opportunities is an important component of civic engagement in this century (Youniss et al., 2002). Putnam (2000) reinforced the importance of citizen participation and commitment if c ommunities are to survive and prosper. Growing future citizens is of paramount importance for the long term vitality of communities. Adult influence plays an important role in how youth connect to their community (Obradovic & Masten, 2007). Adults as ci tizens in communities must provide opportunities for engagement and foster that community relationship; an inclusive environment is a primary component of civic engagement opportunities ( Camino & Zeldin, 2002 a; Pearce & Larson, 2006). Home environment an d parental influence are also important in forming attitudes towards social action (Papanastasiou & Koutselini, 2003). The 4 H youth development program provides a safe environment for youth to explore and engage with their
46 community (National Council, 20 10) ; caring adult volunteers and parents are engaged with youth throughout the 4 H experience. Research shows that engaging youth and adults together as partners in the learning process provides youth greater opportunities to contribute at the community l evel in decision making ( Israel & Ilvento, 1995; Jones, 2006; Jones & Perkins, 2005; Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes, & Calvert, 2000). Experiences That Lead to Engaged Citizens Youth define citizenship as good behavior; doing what is expected of you, following the rules, etc. (Conover & Searing, 2000). As youth grow (ages 10 to 25) it is a goal of civic engagement education to expand their view of citizenship to include responsible citizenship; the concept that it would be irresponsible not to help or not to st ep up and change what they see as wrong, or blindly follow a law that might cause harm (Youniss, et al., 2002). Tolerance is a fundamental part of citizenship but current culture is not always supportive of fostering it (Walzer, 1990) It evolves through adolescence and e arly adulthood (Selman, 1980). W ith the right experiences and education, tolerance shifts into an understanding and appreciation of This shift provides a new perspective on social responsibi lity and a need to engage in community and political issues. Providing young people with experiences that will lead to a change in their view of citizenship and tolerance is key to engaging them in their community ( Putnam, 1995; Sherrod, et al., 2002). I t is an important component to reinforce the importance of tole rance. The Florida 4 H Legislature program provides opportunities to build tolerance through its structure and learning activities. Youth are housed based on role assignment (Lobbyist, Repres entative, Senator, Reporter, or Leadership) and not by county or rooming request (Florida 4 H, 2010). Youth must
47 learn to interact with youth that are often different in many ways (religion, socio economic, and politically). Youth are also asked to role p lay and are put in situations where they will be expected to develop an understanding of someone who holds different personal and/or political viewpoints. Both rooming experiences and role playing provide youth tolerance building opportunities (Florida 4 H, 2010). McFarland and Thomas (2006) found that youth who were members of service organizations, student councils, and religious organizations were more likely to be politically active seven to twelve years later. Flanagan and Van Horn (2001) found that community service experiences done as a part of a group exposes youth to the needs of the community and helps them develop a sense of belonging to something that is larger than themselves This sense of membership and group voice persists into adulthood. Youth that are more knowledgeable about their government and community are more likely to vote and get involved in political is sues (Torney Purta, et al., 2001 ). Hart, Donnelly, and Youniss (2007) found that youth who participated in voluntary service learning experiences and school required service learning were more likely to vote and volunteer. The digital age is providing more opportunities for youth to engage in political issues, educate themselves about polit ics, and become politically active ( Delli Carpini, 2000; Montgomery, et al., 2004). News feeds, blogs, and social media sites are becoming favorite sites for young people to express their views and expand their citizenship and opportunities to increase the ir understanding of tolerance
48 For the past one hundred years 4 H has been helping youth engage in their communities provide opportunities to learn tolerance, and develop positive citizenship skills The 4 H pledge recited by members reinforces the promis e to service to club, community, country, and world (National 4 H Council, 2010 ). 4 H youth development programs provide young people opportunities to engage in community service and actively participate in civic engagement education (Florida 4 H, 2010) Community based organizations like 4 H help youth develop and test their community voice, have a safe place to share ideas, and help develop trust in a democratic society (Heath & McLaughlin, 1993). This study will begin to uncover the impact of these ac tivities and their persistence into adulthood. Social Capital Theory One of the central goals of the 4 H Youth Development program is developing or (National Council, 2010) Service learning and civic engagement education provide o pportunities to develop the citizenship within a community. The interaction between citizens builds community (Putnam, 2000). Social capital can be defined as intangible resources of social connections and social networks that can be accessed and utilize d to create action (Lin, 2001). Social capital places value on the social networks that exist within communities and between its citizens. In general, these relationships must be reciprocal in nature i e. they must enact t he norm of reciprocity (Coleman 1988) ; specifically the benefit s that should be observed at different levels of the network should be seen as a result of the interaction. Social connections come with an expectation of mutual obligations. There is a clear expectation inherent in the favor
49 same indivi dual, but it is mutually beneficial within the community (i e. generalized reciprocity). This is at t he core of the community benefit of social capital; building a invest ment. As social capital accumulates trust builds between citizens. This trust helps bridge into generaliz ed reciprocity; that is, individuals are not expecting a direct payback, but more of a general expectation of benefit (Putnam, 2000). Understanding how social capital is built and further developed is an important component to understanding the impact of t he social capital itself. Brehm and Rahn more individuals participate in community activities the more they will learn to trust others and the more trust that is established the more likely they are to participate. This trust and community engagement will also impact how citizens perceive political institutions or the level of confidence in government (Bre hm & Rahn, 1997). Social capital is more than the number of social networks within a community. It within a community. It provides an indicator of community healt h. Building social capital through the 4 H experience is likely to vary depending on the activity and length of participation. Dimensions of Social Capital Social capital can be divided into five dimensions (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002): 1. Networks, those connections between individuals and groups. They can vary in size and complexity.
50 2. returned. 3. Trust, willingness to assume risk that others in the community will re spond as expected. 4. behavior and individual interactions. 5. Efficacy, the active and willing engagement of citizens within a community. This is at the individual and collective leve l. It is a component of political action. Understanding the dimensions of social capital will aid in identifying it and developing methods of strengthening it. Social capital may explain why some communities are able to overcome problems collectively while other communities are unable to bring people together (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000). High levels of social capital appear to be linked to effective political institutions, low crime rates, lower teen pregnancy, high er educational achievement, and overall collective well being (Fukuyama, 1995; Hagan, Israel, Beaulieu, & Hartless, 2001 ; Merkens, & Boehnke, 1995; Putnam, 1995). Putnam (2000) describes two forms of social capital. The first bonding, is that form of social capital that exists in close relatio nships where individuals are homogenous in nature. Specifically, it exists in relationships where individuals share similar beliefs, demographics, live in the same community, or have similar interests. Bonding social capital is important to build solidar ity in groups such as a neighborhood association where they can stand together to fig ht a shared cause (Larson et al. 2004). Some examples of groups that build bonding social capital are neighborhood organizations, fraternal organizations, and faith base d organizations. Bonding social capital represents the strong ties between individuals (Granovetter, 1983 ; Putnam, 2000 ).
51 The second form, bridging, is how social capital connects individuals that are more heterogeneous in nature (Putnam, 2000). These in dividuals live often live in different communities and differ in other demographic areas. Bridging social capital provides individuals access to resources that would not be available within their homogenous group. These connections are weak compared to b onding social capital connections, but can provide positive social effects (Granovetter, 1983; Putn am, 2000). Putnam (2000) (p.23) ; bonding strengthe ns relationships and bridging helps gets things moving. Putnam (2001) outlines the positive aspects of bonding and bridging social capital, but warns of potential polarizing impacts of high bonding and low bridging. increase antagonist feelings towards outside groups. The civil rights movement provides a strong example of high bonding social capital where strong adverse feelings existed betw een groups. Putnam (2000 ) also compare different forms of social capital (p.23). Social Capital Service Learning and 4 H S ocial capital has been built in 4 H c lub s in a variety of ways over the past 100 years (Flanagan, 2004) Older 4 H members during World War II were called away from the farm to serve and younger 4 H members built victory gardens (Fla na gan, 2004) They also stepped up and produced food to feed sol diers serving in the armed forces (Van Horn, Flanagan, & Thomson, 1998). Community based organizations such as 4 H provide youth opportunities to build connections that lead to the accumulation of social
52 capital One way that social capital is built is as a result of the service learning and civic engagement learning experiences and the competencies associated with these experiences (Campbell, 2000) These competencies include: civic identity, value of community, problem solving skills, and social respons ibility (Youniss et al., 1999). S tructured re occurring community service learning activities build social capital that has been demonstrated to persist into adulthood (Carpini & Ketter, 2000 ; McFarland & Thomas, 2006 ) These activities would happen seve ral times during the year and would follow the experiential learning model including time for reflection and conceptualization (UC STEL, 2005) Opportunities to develop the five dimensions of social capital (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002) in 4 H begins wit h entry into the program. 1. Youth begin the network development dimension of social capital by becoming a member of a community organization like 4 H. The level of development will vary by individual, engagement of the adult volunteers within the club, an d size and diversity of the club. Youth who join a large club with varied projects may have more opportunities to develop social capital than a youth that joins a small club where all youth are experiencing the same project. A larger club would reflect mo re bridging social capital. Youth also connect with other adults and community leaders through these projects. 2. Reciprocal expectations are also developed through club experiences; youth in the club help each other with projects, activities, and interactio ns. There is an expectation that gestures of assistance will be returned; youth begin to rely on each other. 3. As the club experience continues youth and adults develop trust relationships and are willing to assume risk and understand that members of this cl ub will respond when needed. These relationships develop over time through shared experiences within the club. 4. Social norms are developed within the club as club members interact, share experiences and develop trust and reciprocal relationships. Youth loo k to other developed over time. 4 H has traditions and values that overlay club activities as well.
53 5. Efficacy within the club is developed through the community service learning ex perience as well as other experiences shared by the club members. Youth develop a willingness to engage in their community and their club because of the commitment they have to the club members and the community. Building social capital through community service learning provides youth the opportunity to network outside the 4 H club both at the individual and group level. When youth complete a community service learning project they learn where resources are in the community and how to access them (Carpin i & Keeter, 2000) They begin to understand what the needs of community members are and how they can contribute to meeting those needs. They begin to develop reciprocal relationships as they relate their needs to the needs of individuals and the community. Building these relationships in the community provide opportunities to uncover additional experiences in the community that may not have been evident prior to the network connection (McFarland & Thomas, 2006) Efficacy and trust is built over time and th rough continued exposure via community projects ( Campbell, 2000) Experiential learning is at the core of service learning which involves ; hands on learning, reflection, and repetition (Youniss & Yates, 1999). This included reflection provides opportunit ies for adult volunteers to move youth through the experience and help them discover relationships, impacts of experiences, and process how greater impact can happen in a future experience. Efficacy is developed through this process of reflection and also through repeated opportunities for interaction (Beane et al., 1981) Youth can also identify what their efforts have yielded. Trust is developed through this experience and is expressed through the willingness of youth to participate in a collaborative act ivity that may depend on the actions of others (Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman, & Soutter, 2000 ).
54 The community service learning experiences completed at the club level develop specific competencies that are important for life skill development and necessary for adulthood success ( Kelsey & Heame, 1963 ; Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; Miller & Bowen, 1993 ). These competencies include civic identity, value of community, problem solving skills, and socia l responsibility This suggests that 4 H c lub youth who have comp leted more community service learning activities using the experiential learning model approach demonstrate higher levels of social capital than youth with fewer such experiences. Florida 4 H Legislature a nd Social Capital The Florida 4 H L egislature progr am might also build social capital in participants through structured competency building opportunities during a week long event. Youth build competencies such as empowerment, knowledge of government, knowledge o f community, and self esteem (Florida 4 H, 2010) These life skills can also contribute to the development of social capital ( McFarland & Thomas, 2006; Sherrod et al 2002). During the event youth participate in a mock legislative experience and have opportunities to connect resources to legislat in government, develop confidence in making change, and increase und erstanding of the process (Florida 4 H, 2010). These participants may have also been 4 H club members and participated in community service learning expe riences Civic engagement educational opportunities like the 4 H L egislature program develop the five dimension s of social capital in a more condensed timeline and also provide continued development opportunities through repeat ed experiences (Paxton, 2002) The 4 H L egislature program provides youth with a simulation environment to learn how civic action and governmental process works. You th learn how to develop
55 networks and how to communicate effectively within these networks to solve problems. These ne twork simulations develop real networks between youth participants that assist youth in accomplishing goals in other aspects of their 4 H experience and after their 4 H experience has concluded (Sherrod et al., 2002) Building reciprocal expectations and trust within the Florida 4 H L egislature experience is developed through the simulation experience as youth work through the process of getting a bill passed. When a participant agrees to support a bill that another you th is trying to get passed, the norm of reciprocity is invoked with an expectation of (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000) On the real world level when community members understand the process of how government al systems work and experience how it can positively impact a community it builds a norm of reciprocity and trust (Putnam, 2000). The central focus of the Florida 4 H Legislature program is Empowerment and Political Action Prior to the event and during the first day of the event Groups and Network competency building is the focus, but voter registration on the evening of day one begins the shift to Empowerment and Political Action including voting, lobbying for a cause, sp eaking out to a group about a political issue, and using network strategies to facilitate change. All these competencies are the fundamentals of Empowerment and Political Action social capital ( Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002; Putnam, 2000 ). Developing effi cacy through the 4 H L egislature program occurs through the simulation experience by empowering youth to make changes. Youth who participate have the opportunity to choose what legislation is debated during the simulation. Mock bills are written by the y outh and are developed to solve problems that they have
56 identified as important. This experience puts the control in the hands of the youth. It provides empowerment opportunities and greater understanding of the needs of the community and state as a whol e. This experience also helps create social norms within the participant group that will help them achieve goals within the simulation. The 4 H L egislature program develops specific competencies that are important for life skill development and necessary for adulthood success ( Kelsey & Heame, 1963 ; Ladewig & Thomas, 1987 ; Miller & Bowen, 1993 ). These competencies include empowerment, knowledge of government, knowledge of community resources such as key stakeholders or involved public officials and self e steem This study will look at social capital of Florida 4 H alumni b ased on their participation in the 4 H L egislature program All a lumni included in the study may have also participated in a 4 H club and had community service learning experiences. Ex periences will vary by individual based on several factors; years of 4 H participation, number of community service learning experiences, and level of reflection that occurs after each community service learning experience. Constructs o f Social Capital T he literature acknowledges several key constructs of so cial capital. These co nstructs provide a framework for measuring social capital on the individual level (Coleman, 1988; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Stone, 2001 ; Woolcock, 1998 ). This study will focu s on five constructs to measure social capital of 4 H a lumni ; Groups and Networks Trust and Solidarity Collective Action Cooperation, and Empowerment and Political Action (s ee Figure 2 3 ).
57 Groups a nd Networks Networks are considered the foundation of social capital (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000 ; Putnam, 2000 ). The social networks that exist within a community provide a framework for social capital to grow and evolve; key to this framework is how these networks are related to each other (Wasserman & Galaskiewicz 1994). There are different types of networks and they can be defined by their relational elements (Woolcock, 1998). There are three types of networks : bridging, bonding, and linking (Coleman, 1990; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Woolcock, 1998). Bridging is th e weakest form of networks; they are shared with distant friends, co workers, and others not in direct regular contact. Bonding networks are close networks between family, close friends, and those that share similar backgrounds or ethnicities. Linking netw orks are ties between individuals in different social status, income levels, or those that would not otherwise have like interests. These interactions can aid an individual in successfully finding jobs or resources, or when not present, pose barriers to ma king social change (Loury, 1977). Florida 4 H Legislature builds linking networks. Youth from throughout Florida are housed and interact based on role not by geographic location or previous relationship (Florida 4 H, 2010). These networks are based on a common need to pass or fail bills or other assignment at the event. Networks provide opportunities for cross communication between groups and offer opportunities for new partnerships to be forged (Flora, 2001). This study will measure the number of affili ations and the type of networks of 4 H alumni. Specifically, variables are member of civic organization, member of professional organization, member of religious organization, diversity of organization, and size of organization.
58 Groups and networks are fo undational elements of social capital. If individuals do not build functional networks within a community other social capital components will not have a base to build ( Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000 ; Putnam, 2000 ) Foundational social capital provides citizens a roadmap to the community and a path to build future connections. Trust a nd Solidarity Trust is an essential element of social capital (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1995 ; Putnam, 2000;). It provides a foundation for current and future social capital. The recent studies of the decline of social capital indicate that trust is also diminishing (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Putnam, 2000). When trust levels are high the literat ure suggests that governments function more efficiently while c ooperation and communica tion within goods or services with others with no direct expectation of pa yment is an indicator of trust (Coleman, 1988). Research has shown that community involvement builds trust (Brehm & Rahn, 1997). Further, when trust exist s it builds on itself (Cook, 2001 ). If trust is present within a relationship or association and it is associated with a positive experience individuals will be more likely to trust others. Research suggests that when youth engage in their community through service learning activities their trust of adults within the community should increase (Youniss & Yates, 1999) This study will measure trust of 4 H alumni within their community. Specifically, variables are trusts a neighbor, trusts a business, and trusts government. These variables are relevant because of their
59 connection to all levels within the community and can in dicate trust built over time (Rothstein & Uslander, 2005 ). Collective A ction a nd Cooperation Collective Action and Cooperation is the act of contributing to the community in the form of voting, volunteering, or engaging in activities ma y that hold little benefit for the individually personally, but may increase the social well being of their entire community (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003). This form of social capital is developed as a result of other forms of social capital. Neither of whic h can exist without a significant amount of social capital (Putnam, 2000). Where high levels of trust and n etworks exist, Collective Action and Cooperation can also be found. Examples of Collective Action governmental efforts to build recreation facilities or preserve land from development, and youth involvement in community development (Israel et al., 1993). Strong reciprocity is an effective way to develop Cooperation in a community (Bernhard et al 2006; Fehr & Gachter, 2002). Groups and Networks also provide opportunities to develop this higher level of social capital. When networks cooperate there may be even higher levels of growth than the free enterprise system through unfettered competition (Putnam, 2000). 4 H youth who participate in club service learning and 4 H L egislature have opportunities to build Trust and Solidarity as well as Groups and Networks When levels of these social capital constructs are evident research indicates youth w ill begin to work collectively and cooperatively within their community. This s tudy will measure the level of Collective Action and Cooperation in 4 H alumni. Specifically, variables are
60 participated in service with a group, lobbied an elected official w ith a group for change, and cooperated with others to solve a problem. Empowerment a nd Political Action Empowerment is defined as the ability of an individual to make decisions that affect their li fe and may change the course of their life (Grootaert et al. 2004). Empowerment happens as a result of increased assets and capabilities of individuals to influence, control, and negotiate those people and institutions that impact th eir lives (World Bank, 200 0). Political action is one way that individual s or groups may bring about needed change. Political action includes voting, filing petitions, attending public meetings, demonstrating, or participating in political campaigns. Many forms of empowerment stem from involvement in groups and networks. Neigh borhood groups, for example, provide members an environment to foster participatory government and empower members to change their community (De Morris & Leistner, 2009). 4 H youth who participate in the legislature program develop competencies in empowerm ent, knowledge of community and knowledge of government the literature indicates that these competencies build social capital and lead to political action (Ostrander, 2004). This study will measure Empowerment and Political Action in 4 H alumni. Specifica lly, variables are voted in last election, participated in a political cause or campaign, and attended a public meeting. Demographic Variables and Social Capital Four demographic variables will be used in this study. Age, gender, marital status, and educa tional level will be measure d to determine influence if any on social capital. There is some evidence to suggest that age has some influence on organizational membership (Glaeser, Laibson, & Sacerdote, 2002). The study found
61 that individuals in their 4 0s are most engaged in organizations than individuals in their 20s or their 60s. Putnam ( 1995 ) found differences in gender shifted as the role of women changed over the past 60 years. When women were not active in the workplace they were invested in the c ommunity; volunteering through church, parent teacher organizations, and neighborhood social groups. As their need to work increased social capital for women decreased and this shift persists. Women tend to belong to fewer service organizations then men (Putnam, 1995; Putnam, 2000). Marital sta tus and social capital seem to have some connection although limited research exists to directly connect them. According to the General Social Survey (2012) from 1972 to 2012 there are 22 % fewer individuals that ind icated married status (74% in 1972 and 52% in 2012) and 12 % more individuals indicating they have never been married (1972 15% and 2012 27%). Putnam (1995) found that marriage (particularly a ith greater social trust and 671). He contends that the decline in marriage is connected to a decline in social capital. Coleman (1988) began the conversation of the building of human capital and the creation of social capital as it r elates to e ducational level Coleman determined that students who stayed in school demonstrated higher levels of social capital than those students who dropped out of school. Helliwell and Putnam (1999) determined that education is one of the most importa nt variables used to predict social capital. Over the past 50 years education al levels in America have raised both in percentage completing high school to percentage completing a college degree. Over the past two decades,
62 however, social capital, has not kept pace with education (Putnam, 1995; Putnam, 2000). This has created a rift between citizens and communities; individuals building social capital competencies through, but communities not providing an environment for citizens to engage. Citizens have greater knowledge to draw from, but no outlet in which to express and build a connection within their community. Chapter Summary This chapter describes the theory and conceptual framework that will drive this (Lin, 2001) as the two theories that will be used to describe the phenomenon within the study. This chapter also outlines civic engagement and service learning as they relate to the development of social capital.
63 Figure 2 1. Adapted F rom Figure 2 2. 4 H 5 Step Experiential Learning Model (UC STEL, 2005).
64 Figure 2 3 Construct Model.
65 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of service learning and civic engagement experiences on adult citizenship through the measurement of social capital. Alumni who participate d in the Florida 4 H L egislature program as youth were surveyed to measure their level of social capital as well as a comparison sample of adults who were not involved in the 4 H L egislature program This study focus ed on fi ve constructs of social capital: Groups and Networks Trust and Solidari ty Cooperation Collective Action and Empowerment and Political Action This chapter will discuss the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, and statistical procedures used for data analysis. Research Questions The res earch questions for this study were to: Does s ervice learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Do the Florida 4 H Legislature program participants develop civic enga gement competencies, indicated as high er level s of social capital in adulthood? Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than 4 H Legislature participants who did not ? Research Design A quantitative desig n was used for this study. Quantitative research focuses on a specific research question, whereas qualitative looks at the broader issue and through deduction, asks questions about what is observed (de Vaus, 2001). Both approaches to research provide oppo rtunities to discover and explore human behavior and
66 motivations. A quantitative approach for this study will provide opportunities to answer question s based on observations and anec dotal information col lected on the population It will also allow contact with more subjects due to the geographic dispersion of the population. Subjects are located th roughout Florida and the United States so qualitative interviews and observations would be costly and require a long time to complete. The study use d a cross sectional design. Cross sectional designs lack a time element, random assignment, and direct intervention to the group (de Vaus, 2001) This design was selected to aid in measuring causal relationships within groups u s ing statistical controls instead of randomly assigned control groups as in an experimental design. There are two criteria, according to de Vaus (2001) which must be met to infer a causal relationship. First, there mu st be a statistical difference (p<.05) between the causal and outcome variables and second, it must make sense that one variable affects the other and not the reverse. The study look ed at the differences between group members as opposed to change. The serv ice learning intervention will be far enough removed from the collection group, 3 to 13 years, so that it will be a focus on difference in the groups as opposed to pre test post test change of experimental, pre experimental, and quasi experimental designs. Population a nd Sample The theoretical population (Nardi, 2006) w ere all Florida residents 20 30 years old. This age group represents about 12 percent of the Florida residents or approximately 2.3 million (United States Census, 2012). Ther e are three groups within the theoretical populat ion: Florida 4 H alumni who participated at least one year in the Florida 4 H L egislature program Florida 4 H alumni who participated in the Florida 4 H
67 L e gislature program as a planning committee member and participant, and a comparison group that did not participate in the Florida 4 H L egislature program The 4 H Legislature population grou p participated a minimu m of one year and as many as six years. The 4 H Legislature program has been held for the past 40 years with an approximate alumni base of approximately 4 700 with an average annual participation of 1 9 0. The sampling frame ( Bernard, 2000 ; Henry, 1990) will be alumni who graduated from high school 3 to 13 years pri or to survey (2000 2009), a 10 year interval group. The average age will be approximately 25 years. For 4 H a lumni the accessible population (Nardi, 2006) size was dependent on the number of valid email addresses. D ue to time the current contact information will be difficult to attain on all members of the population. For this reason a 10 year age range is included in this study to ensure an adequate number could be contacted A c ensus sampling approach was used for the 4 H L egislature program. There were 470 individuals with email information in the population during the 10 year period. There were approximately 850 alumni over the 10 year period. Of those, approximately 160 were planning committee members. Many participants returned multiple years to the program and served multiple years as planning committee. No alumni database for Florida 4 H or Florida 4 H Leg islature program was available. Emails were collected through county databases and old registration forms. A control group of non 4 H Legislature members was randomly sampled to match the sample size of the other group (Agresti & Finlay, 2009) An e mail list (n=1 200) was purchased from Novo Marketing and match ed the demographics of the 4 H population. The list match ed age and was geographically dispersed throughout the
68 state. The goal for the number of completed surveys was 4 00 for each group to allow for the planned data analysis (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009 ). The significance level is p<.05 which is appropriate for a limited population size (de Vaus 2001). Instrumentation The survey methodology was an online sur vey ( Dillman, et al. 2009). In order to maximize response rate, the introduction letter was emailed one week pri or to the email invitation that contained the survey link (Millar & Dillman, 2 011). The online survey was administered through the University of Fl license. The instrument was designed collaboratively by the r esearcher and committee faculty (Appendix A). Hargittai (2001) found that people in their 20s were more web literat e then their older counterparts which aligns with the inten ded respondents (who average 25 years of age). Marra and Bogue (2006) evaluated the current online evaluation tools and found them to be secure. Institutiona l Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to implementation. So cial capital measurement include d five constructs as outlined in C hapter two. They include Groups and N etwork, Trust and Solidarity Collective Action Cooperation and Empowerment and Political Action Each construct has associated variables as outlined in C hapter two. Each construct and variable is further associated with survey questions ( s ee Figure 3 1). Social capital has been measured at the country, region, community, family, and i ndividual level ( Durlauf & Fafchamp, 2004 ; Sabatini, 2009; St one, 2001 ; World Bank, 200 0 ). These studies provide d a framework for the survey development of this study. The instrument is a combination of questions writte n by the principal investigator a nd adapted from two instruments designed by other research ers, and some questions were used verbatim (Grootaert, et al. 2004; Onyx & Bul len, 2000).
69 The instrument was divided into five sections; D emographics (covered in an introduction and conclusion s ect ion), Groups and Networks, Trust and Solidarity, Collective Action a nd Cooperation a nd Empowerment and Political Action Dependent variables for the st udy are the five social capital constructs as outlined in C hapter two. Independent variables are club level community service learning experiences high school community service, participation in 4 H L egislature program and participation in leadership within the 4 H Legislature program Other variables are number of years in 4 H, number of years attendin g the L egislature program, and approximate number of service projects completed with their 4 H club or in high school (s ee Appendix A). Demogra phic data collected was year graduated from high school, education level, gender, and marital status Demographic data aid ed in further comparing data in the analysis process. S kip question formatting was built into the instrument design so non 4 H alumni did not have t o go through irrelevant questions The first section in the main body of the survey is groups and n etworks Participants were asked about organizations they are member s of and ask ed them to name the group or organization Participants were also asked to identify goals of their groups. Participants could indicate specific groups that have similar or d ifferent goals. The survey software linked specific names of groups within the survey so the have to refer back t o their list. Participants were also asked about group and organization interaction with other groups outside the community. This section was analyzed to help determine what types of groups participants interact with and the potential of social capital built as a result of their participation in these groups.
70 Social c apital has been shown to be higher in individuals who are active with groups that have different goals and groups that interact with other organizations outside of their community ( Putnam, 2000). A was calculated for each respondent as follows: GN index= Groups & Networks Index Q52 Number of groups that work with other groups with SIMILAR goals + Q53 number of groups that work with groups with DIFFERENT goals + Q54 Number of groups that work with groups OUTSIDE of the community + Q62 NUMBER of groups + Q51 Number of different TYPES o f groups Specifically, Groups and Networks in dex is the sum of five questions that ask h ow many groups, w hat types of groups, whether these groups work with oth er groups with similar goals, whether these groups work with other gro ups with different goals, and whether these groups work with other groups outside the community. Each question pre loads their groups described in Question 62. Each question was coded using a number. For example, question 52 asks the respondent to indicate how many groups t hey are an active member. If the respondent selects the second response option they earn ed a score of two for that question. Question 51(Number of different TYPES of groups ) asks respondents to further describe each group based on eight different descript ors : neighborhood, business, professional, political, trade or labor, cultural, religious, or community society or festival group. For this question, each respondent then received a score for the number of different groups they are affiliated with.
71 The se cond section measure d Trust and Solidarity Respondents were asked whether individuals in their community can be trusted. Several different types of community members were listed in separate questions and the respondents were asked their level of agreeme nt with several statements using a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) For example, respondents were asked how much they trusted individuals within the community, government officials, teachers, police, n urses, or businesses. Respondents were also asked about an increase or decrease in trust over the past five years. Respondents were also asked whether someone in their community was facing a crisis would the community come together and help. The following was used to calculate a for each respondent: TS index = Q3.5 Help each other + Q3.1 Can be trusted + Q55 be too careful + Q3.2 Trust statement total + Q3.4 Trust level change + Q3.3 Trust people total + Q3.6 Govt. honesty Specifically, the trust and s olidarity Index is the sum of seven items that asked if they with people, community trust, trust of different types of officials and professionals, and whether their level of trust and gotten worse or better over the past five years. Each question was coded based on a five point Likert scale. All seven numbers were then summed. Questions 3.2(trust statement total) and 3.3(trust people total) are totals for multiple questions. A third section contained questions for measuring collective a ction This section measure d asked whether they worked with others in their community on a project for the benefit of
72 others. They wer e then asked how many and then asked how many people, number of hours, and number of people that benefited from each project. Because there was no existing index to measure Collective Action one was developed by add ing the n umber of projects involved th e number of average number of people that participated in all their projects, the average number of hours, and the average number of people that benefited from the project. All three averages will then be added to the total number of projects listed. This Collective Action of the respondents CA Index= Avg. #1 people participating In projects + Avg. #2 hours served for project + Avg. #3 people benefiting from project + Number of projects total The fourth section was used to measure the Cooperation construct for each respondent. Respondents were asked a set of questions to determine whether someone who member would cooper ate to solve a crime problem, how likely is it for people to work together to help a family after a death, whether the respondent ever spoke out with a group to lobby an elected official for change, and whether the respondent had ever written a letter, email, or called an elected official for change. The following was used to CP index= Q4.4 Sanctioned If they up + Q4.6 Community steps up to solve + Q4.7 Spoke to official + Q4.8 Wrote to an official + Q61 Person needs help Each question w as coded based on a five point Likert scale
73 The fifth and final secti on in the body of the survey measured Empowerment and Political Action This section reflects the highest level of social capital Questions include d : control responde nts feels he/she has in m aking decisions that affect each day, whether the respondent feels he/she has the power to make important decisions that change the course of life, whether the respondent feels he/she has an impact i n making the community a better place to live, h ow often has the respondent gotten together with a group and petitioned officials to benefit petitions successful, whether the respondent ever participated i n public meetings (a list of several types of public meetings was provided), whether the respondent vote d in the last election, whether the respondent vote d in the p residential election, and to what extent does the respondent feel elected officials take his/her concerns into account when they are m aking decisions. Questions were in Likert scale and yes or no format and were coded appropriately. All questions will be summed to calculate an empow erment score: EPA index= Q5.1 Control of decisions + Q5.2 Power to make decisions + Q5.3 Impact on community + Q5.4 Petitioned for a cause + Q5.5 Petitions successful + Q5.6 Participation total + Q5.7 Voted in last election + Q5.8 Voted last pres. election + Q5.9 Govt. listens Instrument Pilot Study A pilot study was done prior to full survey implementation to test instrument validity, develop index es and provide opportunities to refine questions. The popula tion of the pilot study was one year earlier in the stu dy age range; median age 21 This age
74 still m et the community interaction requirem ents and other sampling frame requirement and did not impact study population Thirty respondents participated in the initial pilot. Three of the respondents were interviewed via phone within three days of completing the survey. During the retrospectiv e cognitive interview respondents were asked to describe what each question meant to them, if a question was confusing, or how a question could be phrased to make it easier to understand (de Vaus, 2001) As a result of the pilot several questions were rewr itten, and sections were more clearly defined to help with the flow of the survey. Data was analyzed for central themes, missing data, and whether answers were relevant to the purpose of the question. As a result of this descriptive data analysis, severa l questions were adjusted and rewritten to clarify intent. Internal and External Validity Internal validity is the confidence that the research design will reduce threats and stand up to conclusion s that are drawn by the reader (de Vaus, 2001) Internal validity is reduced when the design and logic of the structure does not allow at least one clear conclusion to be drawn. Use of a cross sectional design does not threaten internal validity in relation to history, maturation, in strument decay or testing effect, which often plagues longitudinal and experimental designs. Threats to internal validity for a cross sectional design are causality and level of meaning. Without a time dimension, linking a causal relationship is difficu lt (de Vaus, 2001) The study design has been developed to minimize threats to internal validity. Instrumentation was developed to minimize threats by using consistent design, responses, and concise questions. Experts in the field were used to assess content validity and determine questions would address intended topics (Dillman et al., 2009). The survey was also approximately 15 20 minutes in length and
75 should not burden the participants or impact survey completion thereby facilitating data quality To address maturation interaction of participants, age of participants will be analyzed to see if there is a difference between ages that could play a factor in responses. One acknowledged threat to internal validity is the respo recall and report their involvement in 4 H and community activities accurately This was addressed in survey and question design by walking respondents through questions that build on previous questions; first asking about groups, then s ervice. Additionally, age of study group puts them no more than ten years away from their 4 H experience, and current service is within two years of receiving the survey. During the pilot process several respondents were interviewed and respondents indica recalling information. An additional acknowledged threat to internal validity is using two different sampling techniques for study and control group. The study group is a limited size so two different techniques ( i.e., census for 4 H groups and random for comparison) was the only way to attain a large enough group to do comparative analysis. The reliability of the construc ts within the instrument was assessed using Cronbach a lpha (Eckerth, 2008) as a step to reduce threats to validity. Factor a nalysis was also used to establish to unidimensionality of each construct (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). External validity is the level to which results can be applied or generalized beyond the study (Calder, Phillips, & Tybout, 1982) This study is s pecifically looking at Florida 4 H Legislature participants. The Florida 4 H L egislature program is fairly unique program offering intense civic engagement education over multiple days, so there are limited generalizations that can be made to groups outside of Florida 4 H.
76 Generalization outside the study but within the population can be strengthened using a cross sectional design because representative samples are critical for generali zations. This study has been designed to minimize threats to external validity by sampling representatively of the population within one state. Data c ollection errors are another threat to external validity (de Vaus, 2001) Data Collection Prior to data collection, the IRB a t the University of Florida review ed the study procedures and all instruments ( see Appendix B) Copies of all consent letters a nd all instrumentation that were disse minated to participants were shared with IRB and approved. IRB also approve d contact strategies for response and non response communication with participants. In an effort to reduce costs and minimize non response bias t his study use d an internet survey to collect data. Non response bias is caused when individuals who do not respond to a survey are different from those who do reply in important ways as it relates to the study (Israel, 2009) The survey was designed with in skip question formatting to help reduce missed or unanswered questio ns and because of the complex skip pattern in the instrument the design would not translate well to a hard copy mail survey ( see Appendix A) Beginning in April 2013 survey participants receive d an introductio n letter via email with an embedded link to the survey, a survey timeline, and encouragement t o participate ( see Appendix C). This letter include d informed consent information and a desc ription of the study, including time commitment to complete the survey and a statement ensuring the confidentiali ty of all personal information. Participants receive d a weekly email reminder until they completed the survey or the sur vey closed ( see
77 Appendix D & E). The survey remain ed open for 12 week s The desired response was approximately 400 respondents for each group. The difference in sample size (470 and 1 200 for 4 H alumni and non 4 H alumni respectively) was due to the connection the study group will make to the survey subject matter: 4 H. The control group did not have the s ame prior relationship so it w as expec ted they were less likely to respond. Participants receive d an email after they completed the survey thanking them for participating and multiple reminders during the process until they participate d Data was downloaded to a spreadsheet for coding and analysis. Each participant was assigned a number; names were kept separate from the data analysis and to maintain confidentiality. Data Collection Process The r esponse rate was lower than projected. The study se t a goal of 400 responses. The total number of responses was approximately 160 for 4 H Legislature and 185 for control group. After excluding incomplete responses, the number of surveys for the analysis was 130 and 137 respectively. Response r ate for 4 H Legislature group 28 % and the response rate for Non 4 H Legislatu re Control group was 12 %. The process of collecting data on the study group proved to be more challenging than originally anticipated. When responses stopped coming in, follow up emails and other contacts were made. After several contacts it was determined that this age group does not utilize emails as their older counterparts do. When contacted via phone or Facebook some respondents indicated they only checked emails once a month and then there were so many email messages a survey email would be overlooked. Group Facebook messages were also ineffective. Individually addressed Facebook messages
78 proved to be very effective and most reque sts yielded a completed survey All respondents and non respondents were contacted in this manner if Facebook information was available. Non response bias was also addressed through contact strategies. Israel (1992) suggests several strategies which were employed with this study. Non respondents were cont acted multiple times through phone, email, and Facebook when available. Comparison of age, sex, and region of Florida residence was completed between respondents and non respondents to determine if there was a difference ( see Table 3 1 ) sq uared (Agresti & F inlay, 2009) was used for the final analysis For the 4 H groups there was a significant difference between respondents and non respondents when comparing age ( p =.000). For the control group, there was also a significant difference ( p =.00 0). Given age related non response bias was found, age became an important control variable in the analysis. Some of the reasons noted for non responses were email delivered to spam folder, email invalid, or out of town during contact time. In the non 4 H Legislature group 16 respondents indicated they had participated in 4 H in some capacity. They did not participate in the Legislature program so they remained in the control group. There were not enough 4 H non Legislature respondents to establish a se parate group for the analysis (Dillman et al., 2009). Several questions were re coded aft er data was collected to align positively and negatively worded items within an index to be consistent For example, q uestion 3.2 had tw o parts recoded and q uestions 4.7, 4.8, 5.7, and 5.8 were also recoded Several
79 questions had missing data and multiple imputation through SPSS was done in order to complete the data set (Schafer, 1999) Reliability alpha was calculated for the five constructs to determine reliability. An acceptable alpha level is .70, four of the fiv e constructs were above this level while the empowerment and political action alpha was .59 (Agresti & Finlay, 2009) Reliability for each c o nstruct is described i n Table 3 2 Factor Analysis Factor analysis was used to examine each social capital index and assess unidimensionality. A fter an initial princip al component analysis was conducted, factor analysis with a standard Oblimin rotation was used, which allows fa ctors to be correlated ( Agresti & Finlay, 2009). The results of the factor analysis are described below. Using principal component analysis on the Groups and Networks index all five items loaded on one component with 53% of the variance explained. The fac tor l oadings can be seen in Table 3 3 Factor analysis for Trust and Solidarity index was first run assessed for a set of seven items. Two of the items were totals of multiple responses within questions; trust statements and trust people were both totals based on multiple questions. The first factor analysis indicated strong factor loading on one component with a second total Only 29% of the variance was explained wit h main component in this factor analysis. The factor a nalysis is described in Table 3 4
80 A factor analysis was rerun on the items with Trust Statement Total broken out with individual questions. The second analysis produced two components with all items The main componen t explained 35% of the variance and this was selected as the basis of the Trust and Solidarity index. Factor analysis results for the second analysis o n thi s index is described in Table 3 5 Principal component factor analysis was run on the Collective Action index. Three of the four items loaded well above the .4 level on the main component and 61% of the variance was explained by the main component. There is a weak second component associated with how many service now question. The factor loading is described in Table 3 6 Principal component factor analysis was used on the Cooperation construct. This construct was adjusted after the initial factor a nalysis. One item which asked if the respondent has ever spoken out with a group to lobby an elected official for change was dropped from the Cooperation construct. Even though it references participation in a group, this item factor loaded negatively wit h the main component so it was moved to Empowerment and Political Action which measures lobbying and political action. Another item asked the respondent if they have ever wrote a letter, email, or called an elected official to lobby an elected official f or change. This is essentially the same question asked for the Empowerment and Political Action construct, so it was eliminated from further analysis. Finally, the item which asked respondents how likely is it that people who do not participate in communi ty activities will be criticized or sanctioned was
81 conceptually, factor analysis produced one component whi ch explained 70% of the variance. The factor loading is described in Table 3 7 F inally, f actor analysis was conducted for the Empowerment and Political Action index. Three components emerged from the analysis. All items are positively correlated with th e first component at the .4 level or above. Cross loading on both voting measures with component two and cross loading with component two and three with control of decisions and power to make decisions. The first component which reflected generalize empow erment, explains 29% of the variance. The factor loadings are described in Table 3 8 Delineation of groups for the Analysis Data collected through the online instrument and was initially divided into two groups, 4 H Legislature group and the control grou p. The 4 H Legislature group ha d 155 completed surveys and another five surveys started and abandoned. The control group had 160 completed surveys and 25 additional surveys started and abandoned. After initial analysis of responses, several incomplete su rveys were removed from the analysis. These surveys were missing between and third and half the data and were deemed too incomplete to impute (Howell, 2007). After removing incomplete respondents the 4 H legislature group as reduced to 130 and the co ntrol was reduced to 137 with a total study size of 267 The 4 H legislature group was further divided into two groups, based on participation in the 4 H Legislature planning committee leadership. T he group divides with 70 who participated in leadership roles such as committee chairs, party leaders, and speaker of the house. There were 60 who did not serve in leadership roles.
82 Data Analysis A .05 significance level was used in testing to reject the null hypothesis. Statistical tests included t test analysis of variance, and covariance analysis, and were based on the research question outlined in C hapter one ; the following questions have been outlined for this study: 1. Do s ervice learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Descriptive s tatistics are used to answer this question youth service learning projects and adults service learning projects for all respondents. 2. Do the Florida 4 H Legislature progra m participants develop civic enga gement competencies, indicated as higher levels of social capital into adulthood? Sta tistics used to measure this were all five social capital construct s for the combine d 4 H group on 4 H group. Nine predictor variables were used in covariance of analysis were age, gender, marital status, educational level, years of 4 H member ship, years of participation in the Legislature program, membership in a 4 H club, completed service in 4 H, and high school service. 3. Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than those who did not ? S tatistics used to measure th is were socia l capital index score s compared with those who did not participate in the planning committee. Nine predictor variables were used in covariance of analysis were age, gender, marital status, educational level, years of 4 H membership, years of participation in the Legislature program, membership in a 4 H club, completed service in 4 H, and high school service. Chapter Summary This study use d a quantitative approach with a cross sectional design. The theoretical population is Florida resident s ag e 21 30. The study focuses on 4 H alumni who partic ipated in Florida 4 H L egislature program and a comparison group of non 4 H persons Participants were 5 to 13 years past high school graduation with an average
83 age of 25. Dependent variables f or the study were measur es of the five social capital constructs; Groups and Networks Trust and Solidarity Cooperation Collective Action and Empowerment and Political Action Independent variables are club level community service learning experiences and participation in the 4 H legislature program. Explanatory variables are number of years in 4 H, number of years attending the state legislature program whether they participated in service projects in 4 H, if they participated in a 4 H club, educational level, gender, marita l status, and age. The instrument was an online survey. Analysis of variance and covariance of analysis was the primary analysis method.
84 Figure 3 1 Social capital constructs, related variables, and survey questions
85 Table 3 1. Respondent and Non respondent comparisons. Groups Age % Gender % Fl Region Chi Squared P value 4 H Legislature Non Response 21 23 46 M 37 NW 23 Age 22.28 .000 23 26 49 F 63 NE 27 Gender .5 2 .482 27 29 5 SW 23 30 33 0 SE 27 Region 6.66 .080 34+ 0 4 H Legislature Response 21 23 39 M 34 NW 18 24 26 49 F 6 6 NE 22 27 29 10 SW 34 30 33 2 SE 26 34+ Comparison Group Non Response 21 23 4 M 3 4 NW 13 Age 140.20 .000 24 26 33 F 6 7 NE 18 Gender 2.04 .153 27 29 45 SW 37 30 33 5 SE 32 Region 6.27 .090 Missing 13 Comparison Group Response 21 23 12 M 3 9 NW 18 24 26 33 F 61 NE 22 27 29 34 SW 34 30 33 13 SE 26 34+ 8 Table 3 2. Reliability of Social Capital constructs Construct Groups & Networks .7 3 Trust & Solidarity .7 8 Cooperation .88 Collective Action .7 4 Empowerment & Political Action .59 Table 3 3. Factor loadings for Groups and Networks Social Capital index. Item Groups & Networks NUMBER of g roups .8 4 Number of different TYPES of groups Similar Group Total .70 .768 Number of groups working with groups with SIMILAR goals .7 7 Number of groups working with groups with DIFFERENT goals .66 Q54 Number of groups with groups OUTSIDE of the community .6 8
86 Table 3 4. Factor Analysis on Trust and Solidarity Construct. Item Trust Trust & Solidarity Can Be Trusted .68 .31 Similar Group Total .45 .768 Trust Level Change .6 4 Help each other .40 .66 Government Honesty .44 Trust Statement Total .02 .41 Trust People Total .7 8 Table 3 5. Factor Loading for Trust and Solidarity with Trust Statement totals broken out using rotated factor model. Item Trust Trust & Soldarity Can Be Trusted .67 Similar Group Total .39 .59 .768 Trust statement Most people in my community can be trusted .77 Trust statement One has to be alert or you can be taken advantage of .70 Trust statement Most people are willing to help if needed .6 6 Trust statement .6 4 Trust Level Change .48 Help each other .47 Government Honesty .24 .67 Trust People Total .7 4 Table 3 6. Factor loading for Collective Action Social Capital Index. Item Collective Action Service Now How Many Service Now .19 .9 5 Average People Participate .80 30 Average Hours Similar Group Total .95 .768 Average People Benefited .9 5 Table 3 7. Factor loading for Cooperation Social Capital Index. Item Cooperation Community Steps Up to Solve .84 Person Needs Help .84
87 Table 3 8. Factor loading for Empowerment and Political Action Index. Item Empowerment Voting Control & Power Lobbied For Cause .70 Control of Decisions .4 1 .3 8 .54 Power to Make Decision .42 .48 .3 7 Impact on Comm. 50 .41 Petitioned for Cause .56 Petitions Successful .6 2 Participation Total .59 Voted in Last Election .5 8 .4 6 Voted Pres. Election .4 7 .4 8 Government Listens .49
88 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction Chapter one defined the purpose of this study, which was to examine the citizenship levels of Florida 4 H alumni with a focus on measuring social capital of Florida 4 H alumni who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program to determine if these individuals have higher levels of social capital than similar individuals who did not participate in this program. Chapter two outlined previous research with a theoretical framework for the study. Chapter three explained the research design, population, instrumentation, data collection procedures, factor analysis and the statistical procedures used for data analysis. Chapter four will discuss the research findings of the study. Chapter four will be structured by the three research questions: Does s ervice learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Do the Florida 4 H Legislature program participants develop civic enga gement competencies, indicated as high er levels of social capital in adulthood? Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as pl anning committee members have higher levels of social capital than 4 H Legislature participants who did not ? Does s ervice learning experience in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Respo ndents reported service learning experiences in 4 H and high school as well as service in adulthood. Service learning experiences in youth was captured through a yes or no question. If yes was indicated respondents were asked to briefly describe each service learning e xp erience. Non 4 H Legislature c ontrol respondents described 73 service projects with each respondent describing no more than three
89 service learning projects. Both 4 H groups reported more service learning experiences than the control group; 4 H Legislat ure respondents described 190 service learning experiences with 24 respondents describing five experiences and 4 H Legislature Leadership respondents described 243 service learning experiences and 38 respondents described five experiences. The number of se rvice exper iences are described in Table 4 1. As adults, both 4 H groups reported more service projects than the control group with 4 H alumni reporting 308 activities and the control reporting 188 activities as adults. Adult experiences are described in Table 4 2 and categories of service projects for 4 H Legislature and control are listed in Appendix F. Do the Florida 4 H Legislature program participants develop civic enga gement competencies, indicated as higher levels of social capital into adulthood? Means and standard deviations were calculated for the social capital constructs for the combined 4 H Legislature group and the control group. All five construct means were higher for the Legislature group than for the control group. The Groups and Network s mean for t he 4 H Legislature group was 27% high er and Collective Action was 73 times higher (Table 4 3). Differences between groups using gender, marital status, age, and educational level were analyzed using Chi square (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). There we re more married respondents in the control group ( p =.000) the 4 H Legislature group had a higher overall education level than the control group ( p =.000, see Table 4 4), and the control group tended to be older than the 4 H Legislat ure group (see Table 4 5 ). A one way analysis of variance was completed for all five social capital constructs for the two groups. The difference between the 4 H Legislature and control
90 group was significant for all five constructs ( p <.05), indicating the presence of an associat ion between group and each construct. The effect size for Empowerment and Political Action was moderate ( R 2 =.20, p =.000) (Cohen, 1992), while the effect size for the other constructs was weak. T he analysis is shown in Table 4 6. Analysis of covariance was completed controlling for all five constructs for the two groups. The analysis controlled for each of the nine predictor variables and a full model including all nine variables. When controlling for age, all five constructs remained significantly associ ated ( p <.05), with the legislature group consistently having the higher mean. For example, the mean score for Trust and Solidarity was 4.50 ( p =.001) higher than that for the control group. The overall model effect size for Empowerment and Political Action remained moderate ( R 2 =.20, p =.000) while those for the other constr ucts remained weak (see Table 4 7). When controlling for gender, all five constructs continued to show a significant difference between the 4 H Legislature and non 4 H comparison gro up (p<.05), with the former group being higher on each construct. The mean score for Empowerment and Political Action was 4.78 higher for the legislature group than the control group and the effect size was moderate (Cohen, 1992) ( R 2 =.21). The a nalysis is described in Table 4 8. Likewise, all five constructs remained significant when controlling for educational level ( p <.05). Of these, the mean score on Empowerment and Political Action for 4 H Legislature was 4.43 higher than the mean for the control group. Empowerment and Political Action also maintained a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.22, p =.000). T he analysis is shown in Table 4 9.
91 When controlling for marital status, all five constructs remained significant between group level ( p <.05). The effect size rema ined moderate ( R 2 =.20, p =.000) for Empowerment and Political Action. T he results are shown in Table 4 10. When controlling for years of 4 H membership, the difference between the 4 H Legislative group and the non 4 H comparison group for the Collective Act ion construct lost significance ( p =.204) and the full model also was not significant. Trust and Solidarity and Cooperation lost significance at the between group level, while the overall m odels were significant (Table 4 11). Empowerment and Political Actio n full model construct remained significant with a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.21, p =.019) and 4 H Legislature had a mean 2.89 higher than the control group ( p =.019). When controlling for membership in a 4 H club, all five constructs were significant and me ans for 4 H Legislature were higher than the control for all constructs as well (Table 4 12). Effect size remained moderate for Empowerment and Political Action ( R 2 =.21, p =.000), while the other four construct effect sizes were low. When controlling for Se rvice as a 4 H Member, four of five constructs remained significant at the full model level and 4 H Legislature group had higher means than the control group for four of the five constructs ( p <.05, Table 4 13). Collective Action was not significant at the full model level ( p =.066) or between the two groups ( p =.123). Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.21, p =.000) and 4 H Legislature had a mean 3.92 higher than the control group ( p =.000). Similarly, four constructs were significa nt for the difference between the groups when controlling for high school service ( p <.05), but the difference was not significant for the Colle ctive Action construct (Table 4 14). For Trust and Solidarity the 4 H
92 Legislature group had a mean 6.05 higher th an the control group ( p =.000). Empowerment and Political Action maintained a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.21, p =.000). When controlling for Years of Participation in the 4 H Legislature program, only two of the five constructs (Collective Action and Empowerm ent and Political Action) were higher for the 4 H Legislature group. When looking at between group, only Collective Action ( MD =452516.82, p =.009) and Empowerment and Political Action (MD=3.18, p=.010) had significantly higher means than the control group ( Table 4 15). Empowerment and Political Action maintained a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.21, p =.010). The full analysis of covariance, controlling for all nine predictor variables, indicated several changes in mean scores, significance, and effect size. Col lective Action was not significant at the model level ( F =1.36, p =.203). Empowerment maintained significance at the model level with a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.26, p =.000), but was not significant between groups. Cooperation ( R 2 =.14, p =.000) and Trust and Solidarity ( R 2 =.079, p =.019) were significant at the model level, but not at the between R 2 =.10, p =.002) for the model and 4 H Legislature group had a mean 3.43 higher than the control group ( p =.019). The covariance of analysis is described in Table 4 16. Parameter estimates for constructs and predictor variables are described in Table 4 17. There are three predictor variables that indicated significant parameter estimates with constructs. Age negatively affects Cooperation (b= .06, p=.014). Educational level affected Cooperation ( b =.405, p =.000) and Empowerment and Political Action ( b =.61, p =.007). High school service negatively affects Groups and
93 Netwo rks ( b = 1.18, p =.056), Trust and Solidarity ( b = 3.27, p =.044), and Empowerment and Political Action ( b = 1.43, p =.047). Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capit al than 4 H than those 4 H Legislature participants who did not serve on the planning committee ? Means and standard deviations were calculated on social capital constructs for the non 4 H comparison group, the 4 H Legislature group and the 4 H Legislative leadership group. Reporting the mean provides a baseline for the each group and standard deviation indicates the degree to which the group is away from the mean (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). Both 4 H Legislature and 4 H Legislature leadership participants had mean scores higher than the control group on all of the soc ial capital constructs (Table 4 18). For the Groups and Networks construct, the 4 H Legislature leadership group had a mean score 24% higher than the control group. Collective Action numbers, which are based on the number of persons involved and number benefitting from the action, were notably larger than the scale used to indicate value in the other constructs. Several respondents reported impacts with very large project outreach so the numbers are large (number of people benefiting from the project). Descriptive data were summarized for age, gender, education level, and marital status for each group. The three gro ups are split by gender Table 4 19 displays the group breakdown by gender, marital status, and educational level. Chi square was calculated for the three categorical predictor variables, gender, marital status, and educational level to test for differences between the three study groups. There was a significant difference between the th ree groups for Marital Status ( x 2 =32.03, p =.000) and Educational Level ( x 2 =38.13, p =.000). There was not a significant difference in
94 Gender ( x 2 =.893, p =.640). An analysis of variance was run on the three groups with the interval variable Age. There was a significant difference between the three groups for Age ( F =2.449, p =.000, Table 4 20). One Way Analysis of Variance and T Test After the descriptive analysis, independent sample t tests were run to begin to compare groups within constructs to better underst and the data. There was a significant difference in scores ( p <.05, Table 4 21) for all constructs. 4 H Legislature leadership was significantly higher than the control group for all five constructs 4 H Legislature was higher than the control on all five constructs 4 H Legislature and 4 H Legislature leadership were not significantly different on any of the five constructs. One way analysis of variance of the three groups was conducted for all five constructs. Differences between the three groups on the c onstructs were all significant and Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.21, p =.000) H Legislature leadership mean for Trust and Solidarity was significantly higher than the control group ( MD =4.93, p =.002). Empowerment and Political Action mean for 4 H Legislature leadership was significantly higher than the control group ( MD =5.55, p =.000). None of the means were significantly different between the 4 H Legislat ure and the 4 H Legislature leadership groups. The analysis of varian ce results are shown in Table 4 22. Analysis of Covariance Analysis of covariance was conducted for each construct using several predictor variables to look at how the variables might be influencing the association between the three groups and the social capital constructs. The analysis controlling for age
95 indica ted both 4 H groups had a higher score on four of the five constructs (Table 4 23). With Age included as a predictor, the full model for the Collective Action construct was not, however, significant ( F =2.237, p =.084) and did not provide a good fit for the data. The association of groups with Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size ( Eta 2 =.21, p =.000). The other construct effect sizes were low. 4 H Legislature leadership group had a mean 4.94 ( p =.003) higher than the control group on Tru st and Solidarity, it also had a higher mean score ( MD = 5 .46, p= .000) in Empowerment and Political Action. The analysis is described in Table 4 23. When controlling for Gender, all five social capital constructs had higher scores for at least one of the 4 H groups. Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size Eta 2 =.22, p =.000). 4 H Legislature leadership had a mean for Trust and Solid arity of 4.94 ( p =.002) higher than the control group. Empowerment and Political Action on Legislature leadership had a mean 5.54 ( p =.000) higher than the control group. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 4 24. When controlling for Education al Level, all five constructs had higher scores for at least one of the 4 H groups ( p <.05, Table 4 25). Empowerment and Political Action continued to maintain a moderate effect size ( Eta 2 =.23, p =.000) and Cooperation had a low to moderate effect size ( Eta 2 =.10, p =.000). 4 H Legislature leadership had an Empowerment and Political Action mean 5.09 ( p =.000) higher than the control group. 4 p =.000) higher than the control group for Empowerment and Political Action. When controlli ng for Marital Status, four of the five constructs indicated higher scores at the model level and all five constructs had at least one 4 H groups with a
96 higher score relative to the non 4 H comparison group ( p <.05, Table 4 26). Empowerment and Political Ac tion maintained a moderate effect size and both 4 H Legislature ( MD =3.814, p =.000) and 4 H Legislature leadership ( MD =5.418, p =.000) had higher means than the control group. Further, the between group association for 4 H Leadership and the control had a mo derate effect size ( Eta 2 =.18, p=.000). When controlling for Years of 4 H Membership, Groups and Networks and Empowerment and Political Action were the only two constructs to maintain significantly higher scores. Empowerment and Political Action had a weak net effect size ( Eta 2 =.03 p =.000) with Groups and Networks indicating a weak effect size ( Eta 2 =.08, p =.000). 4 H Legislature leadership had a mean that was 2.53 ( p =.025) higher than the control group for Groups and Networks, while the 4 H Legislature grou p had a slightly higher difference ( MD =3.13, p =.004). When controlling for membership in a 4 H Club, Collective Action was again the only construct to not have a significantly higher score at the full model level ( see Table 4 28). The association of group with Empowerment and Political Action maintained a moderate effect size and 4 H Legislature leadership had a mean 5.29 ( p =.000) higher than the control for this construct. The 4 H Legislature group also had a mean 4.16 ( p =.013) higher than the control on the Trust and Solidarity construct. When controlling for Service as a 4 H Member, four of the five constructs had a higher score for at least one of the 4 H groups ( see Table 4 29). While neither 4 H legislature groups differed significantly from the contr ol group on the Collective Action ( F =2.14, p =.096), they did for the Empowerment and Political Action constru ct, which had a weak net effect size ( Eta 2 =.08 p =.000). The 4 H Leadership group also had a
97 mean score 4.85 ( p =.030) higher than the control for T rust and Solidarity and 4.62 ( p =.000) higher than the control for Empowerment and Political Action. When controlling for High School Service, Collective Action was again the only construct that did not indicate a significantly higher score ( F =2.15, p =.094) Empowerment and Political Action continued to maintain a moderate effect size ( Eta 2 =.22, p =.000) and both 4 H groups had means significantly higher than the control for this construct (4 H Legislature MD =4.67, p =.000; 4 H Leadership MD =6.19, p =.000). Th e a nalysis is described in Table 4 30. When controlling for years of participation in the Flor ida 4 H Legislature program, the overall models were significant in predicting construct scores ( see Table 4 31), but differences between groups lost significance for three of the five constructs. Mean scores were lower for all group associations with the highest difference between 4 H Legislature leadership and control for Empowerment and Political Action ( MD =4.35, p =.003). Empowerment and Political Action had a weak effect size ( Eta 2 =.03 p =.000) for the groups. The other constructs also showed a low effect size between groups A full model covariance of analysis was completed, controlling for all nine predictor variables simultaneously. A s a result, four o f the five construct indicated the full model level had significant predictors but the legislature groups lost significance for three of the five constructs (Table 4 32). Groups and Networks group association was significant with a weak effect size ( Eta 2 =.03, p =.036) Collective Action also had indicated between group association with a weak effect size ( Eta 2 =.03, p =.039) Groups and Networks construct for 4 H Legislature had a mean 3.56 ( p =.015) higher than the control. For Groups and Netw orks, 4 H Legislature also had a mean higher than the
98 control for Collective Action ( MD =646072.87, p =.015). The full model for Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.28, p =.000), but no significant difference between groups. Group s and Networks had a low to moderate effect size ( R 2 =.14, p =.002) for the full model. Parameter estimates for predictor variables for each cons tructs were outlined in Table 4 33 to determine the incremental effect of each predictor variable. There are fo ur predictor variables that indicated significant parameter estimates with constructs. Age has a negative effect ( b = .06, p =.015) on the Cooperation construct. Educational level has a positive effect ( b =.40, p =.000) on Cooperation and a positive effect ( b = .59, p =.010) on Empowerment and Political Action. High School Service predictor had negative effects ( b = 1.21, p =.051) Groups and Networks Construct, Trust and Solidarity ( b = 3.26, p =.045), and Empowerment and Political Action ( b = 1.40, p =.053). Years of L egislature participation negatively affects ( b = 104110.70, p =.032) Collective Action. Predictor variable means and standard deviations are described in Appendix G. Test for collinearity indicated predictor variables are not highly correlated with eigenvalues well above zero (Appendix H). A correlation matrix for predictor variables is described in Appendix I. Answers to questions are presented in two frequency tables in Appendix J. Covariance analysis was used to further examine associations afte r full model analysis on constructs where the differences between the three groups lost significance as a result of including all of the predictors in the model. For Trust and Solidarity 4 H Legislature group, after the variables indicating years of legis lature participation and years of 4 H participation were removed, the F statistic increased to 2.69 from 1.98 (p= .07), closer to significance level. Further removing the variable 4 H club membership
99 increased the F statistic from 2.69 to 2.81 ( p =.062). Fi nally, after Educational Level was removed the F statistic increased to 3.38 and regained significance ( p =.036). For the Cooperation construct, Educational Level, Years of 4 H Participation, and Years of 4 H Legislature Participation was removed from the model. As a consequence, the F statistic increased to 1.85 and significance value was p =.159. Further removal of the variable describing whether respondent participated in service learning while in 4 H moved the F statistic to 4.04 and the model for this c onstruct regained significance ( p =.019). For Empowerment and Political Action, first removing the variable describing years of 4 H Legislature participation increased the F statistic to 2.80 from 2.68 ( p =.063). Further removing years of 4 H participation increased the F statistic to 8.49 and regained high significance ( p =.000). Table 4 34 describes the reduced model analysis for the three constructs. Social Capital Predictors As discussed in Chapter two and outlined in Fi gure 3 1, social capital is though t to be built over time. Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity levels build before Cooperation, Collective Action, and Empowerment and Political Action are established (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002). For this reason an additional covariance of anal ysis was run using Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity as predictor variables for the remaining constructs. When controlling for Groups and Networks, Cooperation ( MD =1.26, p =.001) and Empowerment and Political Action ( MD =5.21, p =.000) had higher s cores for at least one 4 H group c ompared to the control (Table 4 35). Empowerment and Political Action had a moderate effect size ( R 2 =.23, p =.000). 4 H Legislature leadership had a 5.21 ( p =.000) mean than the control group. 4 H Legislature mean was 3.49 ( p =.000) higher for Empowerment and Political Action.
100 Parameter estimates indicate that Groups and Networks significantly affects Empowerment and Political Action ( b =.18, p =.016). Parameter est imates are described in Table 4 37. When controlling for Trust and Solidarity, Cooperation ( MD =.97, p =.007) and Empowerment and Political Action ( MD =5.55, p =.000) both had higher scores for at least one 4 H group (Table 4.36). Empowerment and Political Action continued to maintain a moderate effect size and Cooperatio n had a low to moderate effect size ( R 2 =.16, p =.000). Parameter estimates indicate that Trust and Solidarity significantly affects Empowerment and Political Action ( b =.07, p =.010). Parameter est imates are described in Table 4 38. Chapter Summary This chap ter outlines results of analyses on five social capital constructs; Groups and Networks, Trust and Solidarity, Cooperative, Collective action, and Empowerment and Political Action. Analyses completed were descriptive, t test, analysis of variance, and ana lysis of covariance to address the three research questions. Predictor variables were also tested for collinearity and correlation to establish associations present.
101 Table 4 1. Youth Service learning experiences by group. Groups Persons with No Service Projects Persons with 1 Project Persons with 2 Projects Persons with 3 Projects Persons with 4 Projects Persons with 5 or more Projects T otal Persons Control 64 (47%) 62 (45%) 8 (6%) 3 (2%) 0 0 137 4 H Legislature 10 (16%) 5 (8%) 6 (10%) 7 (12%) 8 (13%) 24 (40%) 60 4 H Leadership 10 (14%) 17 (24%) 8 (12%) 4 (6%) 5 (7%) 26 (37%) 70 Table 4 2. Adult Service learning experiences by group. Groups Persons with No Service Projects Persons with 1 Project Persons with 2 Projects Persons with 3 Projects Persons with 4 Projects Persons with 5 or more Projects Total Persons Control 60 (43%) 23 (19 %) 26 (19%) 10 (7%) 8 (5%) 10 (7 %) 137 4 H Legislature 16 (26%) 11 (18%) 12 (20%) 4 (7%) 6 (11 %) 11 (18 %) 60 4 H Leadership 12 (17%) 14 (20%) 16 (22%) 15 (21%) 5 (9 %) 8 (11%) 70
102 Table 4 3. Mean and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables for Full Legislature group and Control. Table 4 4 Gender, Marital status, and educational level compared by two groups. Predictors Non Leg. Leg. Chi square P value Gender %male 54 47 .4 8 .490 Marital Status %Married Education 58 41 32.00 32.9 4 .000 .000 Ed. Less than H.S. 7 0 Ed. %H.S. 17 5 Ed. %some college 19 16 Ed. %2 yr degree 18 19 Ed. %4 yr degree 23 48 Ed. % Grad/Prof degree 17 11 Table 4 5 Predictor vari able age comparison of the two groups. Group Mean Age F statistic P value Between group difference 36.05 .000 Non Legislature Control 29 Legislature 25 Dependent Variables Control Mean Std. Dev. Full Leg. Mean Std. Dev. Groups & Networks 8.28 3.53 10.50 4.5 1 Trust & Solidarity Collective Action 58.62 2657.74 11.38 15839.55 63.10 196927.36 9.76 971791.5 2 Cooperation 6.35 2.55 7.49 1.79 Empowerment & PA 20.62 4.8 5 25.46 4.79
103 Table 4 6 One Way Analysis of Variance between groups for each construct Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.24 .000 .07 20.58 .000 Control & Legislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Legislature 4.50 .001 .04 12.0 2 .001 Cooperation Control & Legislature 1.11 .000 .0 6 16.69 .000 Collective Action Control & Legislature 194267.31 .020 .02 5.5 2 .020 Empowerment & PA 4.81 .000 .20 66.53 .000 Control & Legislature
104 Table 4 7 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full model R squared Full model F ts Full model P value Groups & Networks 2.30 .000 .07 10.3 1 .000 Control & Legislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Legislature 4.50 .000 .04 5.9 9 .003 Cooperation Control & Legislature .95 .001 .0 7 9.67 .000 Collective Action Contr ol & Legislature 211194.54 .017 .02 2.9 1 .057 Empowerment & PA 4.72 .000 .20 33.2 4 .000 Control & Legislature Table 4 8 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for gender. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full M odel P value Groups & Networks 2.21 .000 .0 8 11.1 1 .000 Control & Legislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Legislature 4.53 .001 .04 6.10 .003 Cooperation Control & Legislature 1.11 .000 .0 6 8.3 5 .000 Collective Action Control & Legislature 198758.55 .017 .0 3 3.59 .029 Empowerment & PA 4.78 .000 .2 1 34.3 8 .000 Control & Legislature
105 Table 4 9 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for educational level. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.29 .000 .07 10.34 .000 Control & Leadership Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.04 .003 .05 7.0 9 .001 Cooperation Control & Leadership .89 .001 10 14.54 .000 Collective Action Control & Leadership 213835.14 .013 .02 3.23 .041 Empowerment & PA 4.43 .000 .22 37.66 .000 Control & Leadership Table 4 10 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for marital status. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.21 .000 .0 8 10.26 .000 Control & Legislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Legislature 4.42 .002 .04 6.00 .003 Cooperation Control & Legislature 1.20 .000 .06 8.73 .000 Collective Action Control & Legislature 223977.90 .012 .02 3.23 .041 Empowerment & PA 4.68 .000 .20 33.37 .000 Control & Legislature
106 Table 4 11 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of 4 H membership. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.90 .005 .07 10.5 4 .000 Control & Legislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature 2.89 .288 .0 5 6.2 3 .002 Cooperation Control & Legislature .33 .560 .0 7 9.6 3 .000 Collective Action Control & Legislature 220498.35 .204 .02 2.76 .065 Empowerment & PA 2.89 .019 .21 35.1 3 .000 Control & Legislature Table 4 12 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for membership in a 4 H Club. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.34 .000 0 8 10.60 .000 Control & Le gislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature 4.83 .000 .0 5 6.59 .000 Cooperation Control & Le gislature 1.15 .000 .0 6 8.7 5 .0 00 Collective Action Control & Le gislature 209258.31 .015 .0 2 3.0 5 .0 49 Empowerment & PA 4.61 .000 21 35.0 9 .000 Control & Le gislature
107 Table 4 13 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Service as a 4 H member. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 3.19 .000 .08 11.58 .000 Control & Le gislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature 4.45 .032 .04 5.9 9 .003 Cooperation Control & Le gislature .99 .023 .06 8.3 9 .000 Collective Action Control & Le gislature 203669.18 .123 .02 2.75 .066 Empowerment & PA 3.92 .000 .2 1 34.08 .000 Control & Le gislature Table 4 14 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for High School Service Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 2.82 .000 .0 9 12.2 8 .000 Control & Le gislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature 6.05 .000 .0 6 8.03 .000 Cooperation Control & Le gislature .92 .004 .0 7 9.68 .000 Collective Action Control & Le gislature 181959.23 .061 .02 2.7 6 .000 Empowerment & PA 5.51 .000 .21 35.63 .000 Control & Le gislature
108 Table 4 15 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of participation in the 4 H Legislature Program. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 1.84 .077 .07 10.3 6 .000 Control & Le gislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature 1.65 .544 .0 5 6.73 .000 Cooperation Control & Le gislature .66 .250 .06 8.7 6 .000 Collective Action Control & Le gislature 452516.82 .009 .03 4.23 .000 Empowerment & PA 3.18 .010 .2 1 34.5 6 .000 Control & Le gislature Table 4 1 6 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age, gender, educational level attained, marital status, number of years in 4 H, participation in a 4 H club, if they participated in service while in 4 H, participation in service in high school, and number of years they participated in 4 H Legislature. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks 3.43 .019 .10 2.9 2 .002 Control & Le gislature Trust & Solidarity Control & Le gislature .60 .875 .0 80 2.1 9 .019 Cooperation Control & Le gislature .10 .894 .14 4.18 .000 Collective Action Control & Le gislature 462230.83 .059 .05 1.3 6 .203 Empowerment & PA 1.86 .272 .26 9.1 4 .000 Control & Le gislature
109 Table 4 17. Parameter estimates for predictor variables for each construct. Table 4 1 8 Mean and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables for all three groups Predictor Variables Groups & Networks P value Trust & Solidarity P value Cooperation P value Collective Action P value Emp. & PA P value Intercept 12.7 1 .000 63.09 .000 4.9 4 .000 607205.33 .142 21.4 6 .000 Age .0 1 .857 .06 .618 .06 .014 3935.07 .612 .0 5 .393 Gender .639 .224 .86 .534 .0 6 .845 140904.8 7 .112 1.00 .104 Educational level .0 9 .649 .62 .219 .4 1 .000 31846.28 .324 .6 1 .007 Club membership .34 .700 3.21 .172 .27 .569 140959.51 .348 1. 50 .152 Years of 4 H .03 .780 .3 1 .292 .0 7 .283 9170.2 6 .623 .13 .304 4 H Service 90 .175 .2 5 .888 .00 .990 5517.95 .960 .43 .575 Marital Status .028 .933 .12 .887 .2 6 .144 53296.67 .338 .1 8 .650 High School Serv. 1.1 8 .056 3.2 7 .044 .3 8 .250 15988.5 9 .877 1.4 3 .047 Years of Leg. .1 8 .520 70 .338 .04 .768 79487.25 .088 .33 .305 Non 4 H Leg. 3.4 3 .019 60 .875 .10 .894 462230.8 3 .059 1.86 .272 4 H Leg. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Dependent Variables Control Mean Std. Dev. Leg. Mean Std. Dev. Leg. Ldrshp. Std. Dev. Groups & Networks 8.28 3.53 10.87 5.1 8 10.21 3.8 3 Trust & Solidarity Collective Action 58.62 2657.74 11.38 15839.55 62.62 135555.98 9.60 220935.68 63.56 249527.10 9.87 1305400.60 Cooperation 6.35 2.55 7.25 1.91 7.64 1.71 Empowerment & PA 20.62 4.8 5 24.57 4.5 1 26.17 4.92
110 Table 4 19 Gender, Marital status, and educational level compared by groups. Predictors Non Leg. Leg. Leg. Ldrshp. Chi square P value Gender %male 53 19 26 .89 .640 Marital Status %Married Education 58 29 29 32.03 38.13 .000* .000* Ed. Less than H.S. 7 0 0 Ed. %H.S. 1 7 8 1 Ed. %some college 19 18 14 Ed. %2 yr degree 1 8 23 1 6 Ed. %4 yr degree 2 3 40 5 6 Ed. % Grad/Prof degree 1 7 10 1 3 Table 4 20 Predictor variable age comparison of the three groups. Group Mean Age F statistic P value Between group difference 2.45 .000* Non Legislature Control 29 Legislature 25 Legislature Leadership 25 Table 4 21 Independent T Tests on Social Capital Constructs for each of the three groups (N=267) ( Group 1 Non 4 H Legislature control, Group 2 4 H Legislature, Group 3 4 H Legislature Leadership) Construct Group T obs P value Groups & Networks Control & Leadership 3.63 .000 Control & Legislature 4.08 .000 Legislature & Leadership .82 .411 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 3.08 .002 Control & Legislature 2.37 .019 Legislature & Leadership .55 .584 Collective Action Control & Leadership 2.22 .028 Control & Legislature 7.02 .000 Legislature & Leadership .67 .505 Cooperation Control & Leadership 3 .82 .000 Control & Legislature 2.45 .015 Legislature & Leadership 1.24 .218 Empowerment & PA Control & Leadership 7.76 .000 Control & Legislature 5.37 .000 Legislature & Leadership 1.93 .056
111 Table 4 22 One Way Analysis of Variance between groups for each construct Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta Score Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .08 .08 10.71 .000 Control & Leadership 1.94 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.59 .65 .000 1.00 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.94 .002 .04 .04 6.12 .003 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.99 .94 .005 1.00 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.29 .000 .06 .06 8.85 .000 Control & Legislature .90 .009 Legislature & Leadership .39 .947 Collective Action Control & Leadership 246869.36 .040 .0 3 .03 3.22 .0 42 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 132898.25 113971.12 .615 1.00 Empowerment & PA .21 .21 35.40 .000 Control & Leadership 5.55 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.95 1.61 .000 .174
112 Table 4 23 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .07 .08 7.15 .000 Control & Leadership 1.99 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.65 .66 .000 .357 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.94 .003 .04 .04 4.06 .008 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.40 .94 .021 .616 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.14 .001 .04 .07 6.80 .000 Control & Legislature .73 .041 Legislature & Leadership .40 .305 Collective Action Control & Leadership 263069.26 .012 .03 .03 2.24 .084 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 149896.00 113173.26 .171 .343 Empowerment & PA .1 9 .21 23.59 .000 Control & Leadership 5.46 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.85 1.61 .000 .058
113 Table 4 24 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for gender. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .07 .08 7.65 .000 Control & Leadership 1.93 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.55 .62 .000 .384 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.94 .002 .05 .05 4.14 .007 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 4. 04 .91 .015 .629 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.29 .000 .06 .06 5.91 .001 Control & Legislature .89 .010 Legislature & Leadership .40 .311 Collective Action Control & Leadership 248524.38 .013 .02 .0 3 2.67 .048 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 140425.98 108098.40 .181 .364 Empowerment & PA .21 .22 24.45 .000 Control & Leadership 5.54 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.88 1.65 .000 .050
114 Table 4 25 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for educational level. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .07 .08 7.15 .000 Control & Leadership 1.99 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.62 .63 .000 .379 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.36 .007 .03 .05 4.75 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.70 .67 .026 .722 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.01 .002 .04 .10 9.83 .000 Control & Legislature .76 .028 Legislature & Leadership .26 .501 Collective Action Control & Leadership 274802.69 .008 .03 .03 2.53 .057 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 147535.45 127267.24 .163 .288 Empowerment & PA .18 .23 26.18 .000 Control & Leadership 5.09 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.71 1.39 .000 .100
115 Table 4 26 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for marital status. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .07 .08 7.12 .000 Control & Leadership 1.91 .002 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.56 .65 .000 .359 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.85 .003 .04 .04 4.08 .007 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.91 .94 .023 .616 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.38 .000 .07 .07 6.16 .000 Control & Legislature .99 .006 Legislature & Leadership .39 .315 Collective Action Control & Leadership 276764.12 .008 .03 .03 2.46 .063 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 162539.26 114214.86 .137 .338 Empowerment & PA .18 .21 23.67 .000 Control & Leadership 5.42 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.81 1.60 .000 .059
116 Table 4 27 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of 4 H membership. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .03 .08 7.25 .000 Control & Leadership 2.53 .025 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.13 .60 .004 .403 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 3.39 .253 .01 .05 4.20 .006 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.59 .80 .359 .672 Cooperation Control & Leadership .53 .391 .00 .07 6.64 .000 Control & Legislature .21 .726 Legislature & Leadership .33 .410 Collective Action Control & Leadership 293183.69 .120 .01 .03 2.17 .092 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 175023.89 118159.79 .329 .325 Empowerment & PA .03 .22 24.56 .000 Control & Leadership 3.78 .005 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.34 1.45 .066 .089
117 Table 4 28 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for membership in a 4 H Club. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .08 .08 7.25 .000 Control & Leadership 2.08 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.62 .54 .000 .454 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 5.42 .001 .05 .05 4.53 .004 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 4.16 1.26 .013 .506 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.31 .000 .06 .07 6.09 .001 Control & Legislature .96 .006 Legislature & Leadership .35 .378 Collective Action Control & Leadership 269754.23 .009 .03 .03 2.41 .068 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 142437.11 127317.11 .181 .291 Empowerment & PA .19 .22 24.47 .000 Control & Leadership 5.29 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.87 1.42 .000 .097
118 Table 4 29 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Service as a 4 H member. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .06 .08 8.05 .000 Control & Leadership 2.89 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.59 .70 .000 .325 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 4.85 .030 .02 .04 4.07 .008 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.91 .95 .095 .615 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.16 .013 .02 .06 5.94 .001 Control & Legislature .76 .120 Legislature & Leadership .40 .309 Collective Action Control & Leadership 252211.96 .075 .01 .02 2.14 .096 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 138497.94 113714.01 .351 .341 Empowerment & PA .08 .22 24.24 .000 Control & Leadership 4.62 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 2.97 1.65 .005 .051
119 Table 4 30 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for High School Service Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .09 .09 8.46 .000 Control & Leadership 2.53 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.18 .65 .000 .358 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 6.46 .000 .06 .06 5.42 .001 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 5.55 .90 .003 .629 Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.08 .003 .03 .07 6.72 .000 Control & Legislature .73 .059 Legislature & Leadership .35 .370 Collective Action Control & Leadership 233731.91 .036 .02 .02 2.15 .094 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 117912.03 115819.88 .316 .335 Empowerment & PA .21 .22 25.04 .000 Control & Leadership 6.19 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 4.67 1.52 .000 .073
120 Table 4 31 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for Years of participation in the 4 H Legislature Program. Constructs Mean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .02 .08 7.33 .000 Control & Leadership 1.10 .367 Contro l & Legislature Leg. & Leadership 1.95 .84 .062 .264 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership 1.87 .562 .00 .05 4.48 .004 Control & Legislature Leg. & Leadership 1.62 .25 .554 .899 Cooperation Control & Leadership .93 .170 .01 .06 6.02 .000 Control & Legislature .62 .282 Leg. & Leadership .31 .453 Collective Action Control & Leadership 626689.85 .002 .04 .04 3.69 .012 Control & Legislature Leg. & Leadership 427199.40 199490.45 .014 .111 Empowerment & PA .03 .21 23.89 .000 Control & Leadership 4.35 .003 Control & Legislature Leg. & Leadership 3.01 1.33 .015 .136
121 Table 4 32 Analysis of Covariance between groups for each construct controlling for age, gender, educational level attained, marital status, number of years in 4 H, participation in a 4 H club, if they participated in service while in 4 H, participation in service in high school, and number of years they participated in 4 H Legislature. Constructs M ean Difference P value Eta 2 Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Groups & Networks .0 3 .11 2.76 .002 Control & Leadership 2.75 .084 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.56 .81 .015 .287 Trust & Solidarity Control & Leadership .72 .864 .00 .08 1.98 .031 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership .58 .14 .881 .945 Cooperation Control & Leadership .04 .965 .00 .14 3.80 .000 Control & Legislature .13 .866 Legislature & Leadership .17 .681 Collective Action Control & Leadership 646072.87 .015 .03 .06 1.51 .128 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 426274.34 219798.53 .081 .086 Empowerment & PA .01 .28 8.42 .000 Control & Leadership 2.6 8 .149 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 1.70 .97 .317 .276
122 Table 4 33 Parameter estimates for predictor variables for each construct. Predictor Variables Groups & Networks P value Trust & Solidarity P value Cooperation P value Collective Action P value Emp. & PA P value Intercept 12.84 .000 63.67 .000 4.91 .000 571206.56 .166 21.30 .000 Age .0 1 .870 .06 .619 .06 .015 4145.4 6 .592 .05 .402 Gender .62 .236 .86 .536 .06 .836 136521.0 3 .122 1.02 .098 Educational level .07 .716 .62 .224 .40 .000 36556. 80 .258 .59 .010 Club membership .24 .790 3.23 .173 .29 .542 169212.4 4 .261 1.37 .191 Years of 4 H .0 3 .810 .31 .294 .06 .291 8014.1 5 .666 .13 .323 4 H Service .95 .151 .2 6 .884 .0 2 .964 20741.8 8 .852 .50 .519 Marital Status .0 3 .938 .12 .888 .2 6 .145 52840.27 .340 .1 8 .647 High School Serv. 1.2 1 .051 3.26 .045 .38 .245 23043.2 7 .823 1. 40 .053 Years of Leg. .2 7 .353 .68 .372 .0 3 .873 104110.6 6 .032 .22 .510 Non 4 H Leg. 3.5 6 .015 .5 8 .881 .13 .866 426274.3 4 .081 1.70 .317 4 H Leg. .00 . . . . 4 H Leg Ldrshp .81 .287 .14 .945 .1 7 .681 219798.5 3 .086 .97 .276
123 Table 4 34 Reduced model analysis of three constructs which lost association after full model analysis Constructs F Full Model P value F P value Trust & Solidarity .0 2 .985 Groups without yrs of Leg & Yrs of 4 H 2.6 9 .070 Groups without previous and Clubs 2.81 .062 Groups without previous and Education 3.38 .036 Cooperation .09 .911 Groups without Education, Yrs of 4 H, & Yrs. Of Leg. 1.85 .159 Groups without previous & 4 H Service 4.04 .019 Empowerment & Political Action 1.20 .302 Full Model without Yrs of Leg 2. 80 .063 Full Model without Yrs of 4 H 2.22 .110 Full Model without Yrs of Leg & Yrs of 4 H 8.49 .000 Table 4 35 Social Capital significance controlling for Groups & Networks. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Cooperation Control & Leadership 1.26 .001 .06 5.99 .001 Control & Legislature .85 .05 0 Legislature & Leadership .41 .905 Collective Action Control & Leadership 237193.8 0 .060 .03 2. 2 2 .0 87 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 119963.82 117229.99 .804 .979 Empowerment & PA .23 25.9 9 .000 Control & Leadership 5.21 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.49 1.72 .000 .123
124 Ta ble 4 36 Social Capital significance controlling for Trust & Solidarity. Constructs Mean Difference P value Full Model R squared Full Model F ts Full Model P value Cooperation Control & Leadership .97 .007 .16 15.96 .00 0 Control & Legislature .64 .164 Legislature & Leadership .33 1.000 Collective Action Control & Leadership 234368.10 .064 .03 2. 2 8 .0 80 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 122778.6 0 111589.5 0 .742 1.00 0 Empowerment & PA .21 26.33 .000 Control & Leadership 5.55 .000 Control & Legislature Legislature & Leadership 3.95 1.61 .000 .174 Table 4 37. Parameter estimates controlling for Groups and Networks. Table 4 38. Parameter estimates controlling for Trust and Solidarity. Predictor variables Collective Action P value Cooperation P value Emp. & PA P value Intercept 81273.20 .568 7.04 .000 22.66 .000 Groups & Networks Non 4 H Leg 4995.35 119963.8 2 .629 .268 .02 .8 5 .569 .018 .18 3.49 .016 .000 4 H Leg Ldrshp 117229.99 .326 .4 1 .302 1.7 2 .041 4 H Leg .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 Predictor variables Collective Action P value Cooperation P value Emp. & PA P value Intercept 23008. 80 .930 3.17 .000 20.12 .000 Trust & Solidarity Non 4 H Leg 2532.31 122778.5 6 .519 .247 .07 .6 4 .000 .055 .07 3.66 .010 .000 4 H Leg Ldrshp 111589.54 .349 .33 .374 1.5 4 .835 4 H Leg .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000
125 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions This study begins to uncover what type of citizens Florida 4 H Legislature alumni are and what impact their involvement in the program has had on their citizenship choices as adults. It describes their service learning experiences as youth, their level of engagement in the program, and their level of enga gement in their communities as adults. It further describes their level of social capital as adults and compares it to a control group. In addition, youth who participated in Florida 4 H Legislature as a planning committee member are compared to both the control group and 4 H Legislature alumni who did not serve in the leadership role. Three research questions were outlined in Chapter one: 1) Does service learning in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood?; 2) Does the Florida 4 H Legislature program develop civic engagement competencies that will be expressed through higher levels of social capital into adulthood?; 3) Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher l evels of social capital than those who did not participate as planning committee ? Does service learning in 4 H develop competencies that will be continued into adulthood? Service learning experiences in 4 H begin when a youth enters the program as early a s age five and continue through the conclusion as late as age 19 (National 4 H Council, 2010). Service learn ing experiences are performed at the club level, which is led by an adult volunteer. County level service experiences are also completed and those are led by an adult volunteer or Extension personnel.
126 The objective of service learning projects are to help youth develop a connection in their community and begin to understand key players and networks that exist in the community (Voegelgsang & Astin, 20 00). 4 H Youth Development uses the service learning experience to develop citizens that will stay engaged in the future (National 4 H Council, 2010). Respondents for this study provided descriptive reports of their participation in of service learnin g e xperiences wh en they were in 4 H and/ or high school. The non 4 H Legislature control group reported 73 service learning experiences and the two 4 H groups reported 433 as youth. As adults non 4 H Legislature control reported 188 service learning experienc es and the 4 H groups reported 308. The e xperiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) was used in this study to describe and process the associations that this study captured. 4 H y outh development uses an adapted form of the model (UC STEL, 2005) and voluntee rs and staff are trained to implement programs using the model. This study documented repeat service experiences that included civic engagement service learning experiences through 4 H Legislature program and community service learning experiences. The survey used to collect data did not specifically ask respondents what their level of reflection was for each activity, but many respondents self reported multiple repeat experiences through 4 H service projects completed. The comparison group, however, did not report repeat experiences and there is a broad definition of how high school service was interpreted by respondents for this study. As a result, impacts of high school service and 4 H service may be quite different because the reflection portion of K
127 projects. In this study high school service had a negative impact on the development of social capital. This may be due to lack of reflection and helping youth determine the value and impact of the projects the y are involved with. This reflection provides youth opportunities to become empowered as it relates to their influence on their community (Bohnenberger, 2004; Camino & Zeldin, 2002b; Carpini & Keeter, 2000 ; Conrad & Hedin, 1991 ) Boyte (2001) reported that youth will continue and seek out service if service becomes a habit. Florida 4 H alumni reported repeated service experiences as youth and demonstrated continued service into adulthood. Sherrod et al. (2002) described the need to connect youth to their communities to create ownership and responsibility for that community. This study begins to demonstrate how 4 H service learning experiences build that connection and how that connection continues into adulthood. Conrad and Hedin (1991) found that service learning increases civic awareness and responsibility. Data on Florida 4 H alumni in this study is consist ent with the research that youth service learning experiences help continue engagement into adulthood. For this study, the data are consistent with the view that service learning competencies developed in 4 H by respondents who participated in this study, have persisted into adulthood. Question one does not address the level of citizenship or social capital as a result of service learning experiences, but it begins to outline a pattern for developing a good citizen (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Question one also provided an informal theory. The study reinforces the theory both through youth learning experience reporting
128 and through continued service learning persisting into adulthood. 4 H uses experiential learning as its primar y delivery method and approach -learn by doing (National 4 H Council, 2010). Respondents of this study reported descriptions of the exp eriences as reflection and application process and respondents repeated the activity by providing service learning experiences in adulthood. Other 4 H Youth development rese arch aligns with the findings of this study; 4 H experiential service learning strongly supports ( Boyd, 200; Diem, 2001; Lad ewig & Thomas, 1987). Does the Florida 4 H L egislature program develop civic engagement competencies that will be expressed through higher levels of social capital into adulthood? This question was addressed by measuring social capital of two groups; a combined 4 H Legislature group and the n on 4 H Legislature control. Specifically, we are connecting civic engagement competencies developed as a result of the Florida 4 H Legislature program to current levels of social capital of the respondents in this study. There is also a need to consider whether social capital competency development was a result of 4 H experience (which most of the 4 H group respondents reported membership) or the Florida 4 H Legislature program. Social Capital and the Florida 4 H Legislature program The Florida 4 H Legislature program is a civic engagement education program focusing on developing the highest level of s ocial capital: Empowerment and Political Action (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2005). Youth in this program are provided opportunities to dev elop other levels of social capital that is quickly applied towards such Empowerment and Political Action competencies as voting, lobbying for a cause, or
129 speaking out in a meeting (De Morris & Leistner, 2009). For example, Groups and Networks are introdu ced to participants prior to arriving at the Legislature program and during the first day. Participants are introduced to committee leadership, provided bills to research, links to research, and emails of other committee members so they can begin to netwo rk and find out what the feelings of the group are about bills and general policy. This early networking continues through the first day when networking continues face to face and alliances are formed a piece of legislat ion. There are 12 committees and six lobby groups to begin the 4 H Legislature experience. There are an average of 70 bills in six different topic areas. Youth are assigned roles as representatives, senators, and lobbyists. They set their own objective s as to which bills might pass Networking on these bills begins as soon as the By the end of d ay one of the event youth are moving through Groups and Network development and into a Cooperative / Collective Action building experience. This study demonstrated that 4 H legislature alumni had significant ly higher Groups and Network social capital than the non 4 H control group throughout the analysis, but the effect size was small. As youth, Groups and Network competencies we re likely built through the 4 H experience as a result of s ervice learning in the club experience (Barnett & Brennan, 2006). It is impossible to determine which experience, 4 H or 4 H Legislature, this social capital building p otentially occurred, but it is worth noting that 4 H Alumni did demonstrate higher levels of Groups and Network social capital than the non 4 H Legislature comparison group. This reinforces the literature for the 4 H
130 experience that 4 H life skill compete ncies prepare youth to be good citizens (Boyd, 2001; Fox et al., 2003; Locke et al., 2007). Cooperation and Collective Action are social capital built as a process from Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity (Bourdieau, 1983; Paxton, 2002 ; Putnam, 20 00 ). The 4 H Legislature program does not focus specifically on Cooperation and Collective Action Trust and Solidarity are also not a specific focus. It was measured in this study because literature outlines a process of social capital building and high er level of social capital like Empowerment and Political Action would not be present if other measures of social capital are low (Brehm & Rahn, 1997 ; Lin, 2001; Putnam, 2000; Worldbank, 2010 ). Results of this study indicate higher levels of Trust & Soli darity and Cooperation as overall constructs in the models. The difference between groups lost significance through a spurious relationship with several predictor variables. This will be discussed at a later point in this chapter. Collective Action in t he study was a weak social capital construct and did not show a meaningful difference between the groups. All three of these constructs may have been developed as a result of 4 H club experience, high school service experience, or other experiences in ado lescence. This study design did not allow for measuring causality of these three constructs. The Florida 4 H Legislature program distinguishes itself from all other 4 H experiences by providing unique civic engagement educational experiences. At the end of d ay one of the Legislature program youth are allowed to register to vote for one of beginning of the Empowerment and Political Action social capital building experience.
131 members to vote, speaking out on legislation that is aligned with their party, and communicating views to move legislation forward This process continues for the remaining three days of the Legislature program. This study clearly reinforces the social capital building that occurred as a result of the Florida 4 H Legislature program. Empowerment and Political Action social capital was higher across the 4 H group compared to the control group and the effect size of the associ ation was weak to moderate when the influence of other variables was controlled Florida 4 H does not provide another experience that builds Empowerment and Poli tical Action so a clear delineation can be made between 4 H and 4 H Legislature for the Empowerment and Political Action construct in this study. Do young adults who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program as planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than those who did not participate as planning committee ? This question was addressed measuring social capital of three groups : N on 4 H Comparison group, 4 H Legislature, and 4 H Legislature leadership. The third group is a result of a division of the 4 H Legislature group used to analysis question two of the study. Respondents in this group served as least one year as a planning committee member for Florida 4 H Legislature. The planning committee members are selected from a group of approximately 80 teens age 14 18. These teens are representatives of all geographic districts of the Florida 4 H program and make up the State 4 H Council Executive board (Florida 4 H, 2010). Legislature planning committee members are selected b ased on geographic location, interest in the Legislature program, and whether they have attended the event
132 previously. Planning committee members are required to attend three face to face meetings during the year and the actual Legislature event in June. The Planning committee is responsible for planning of the event, serving as leadership during the event, and de briefing and evaluating the event at the end of the program. Planning activities include writing and editing the 70 plus bills used for the moc k legislative event, seeking out and organizing research information on bills, communicating with other committee members, and communicating with Legislative participants prior and during the event (Florida 4 H, 2010). P lanning committee members social c apital opportunities are similar to Legislature participant opportunities. Empowerment and Political Action is the central social capital focus of the event. Participants are first engaged in Groups and Network s social capital building prior to the event first as a planning committee team then through communication and preparation for the event with other legislature program participants. Planning committee members begin to engage in Empowerment and Political Action social capital building much earlier t hrough bill writing, educational trainings during face to face meetings and research building as they prepare for the event. At the event the end of d ay one voter registration is the transition into the central Empowerment and Political focus of the rest of the week. When looking at social capital measured in the one way analysis between the three groups both 4 H groups demonstrated higher level of social capital than the comparison for all five social capita l constructs at the model level. There was not a significant difference between 4 H Legislature and 4 H Legislature leadership in any of the five social capital associations. It is worth noting that Empowerment and Political
133 Action continued to be the strongest construct and maintained a moderate effect size ( R 2= .211, p =.000) (Cohen, 1992). Analysis of c ovariance controlling for age, gender, educational level, and marital status ha d a limited effect on mean significance, or effect size. When controlling years of 4 H membership the re was an increase in m ean and significance was lost between both 4 H groups and the comparison groups for Trust and Solidarity, Cooperation, and Collective Action It should be noted that Groups and Networks maintained a significant association between both 4 H groups and the c omparison group and had higher mean 4 H Legislature leadership group for Empowerment and Political Action also maintained a higher mean than the compari son group (p=.005). This change is a result of a mediated relationship between the Legislature experience and the number of years respond ents were 4 H members. Figure 5 1 describes this relationship. This relationship between 4 H Legislature and years of membershi p reinforces current research in the literature, that 4 H provides life skill development opportunities and prepare youth to engage in their communities (Barnett & Brennan, 200 6, Fox et al., 2003; Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; Lerner et al, 2008 ) When controlling for service as a 4 H member and high school s ervice there were some changes in mean scores so that significance was lost between the comparison group and Legislature for Collective Action Significance was also lost at the model level for Collective Action There was a spurious relationship where the different groups did not have the impact that years of 4 H had. B ut it is consistent with the literature and question one in this study in relation to service and it s persistence into adulthood ( Conrad & Hedin, 1991 ; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000 ; Youniss & Yates, 1999 )
134 Boyte (1991) found that making service a habit is the most effective way to maintain youth service into adulthood. When controlling for years of participation in the 4 H Legislature program the largest shift in significance and mean scores between groups occurred All five constructs at the bivariate model level were significant ly associated with being in the leadership or legislature groups but only two constructs had significance for the full model Both 4 H groups for Collective Action and Empowerment and Political Action maintained a higher score than the comparison group. This spurious relationship between years of participation and the 4 H Legislature program speaks to the power of reinforcing concepts over multiple years. Even thoug h the study does not indicate there is a significant difference between the Legislature Planning committee and a Legislature participant, youth who return ed to the program over multiple years are associated with higher levels of social capital than youth w ho d id not. Additionally, youth who participated as planning committee may be developing other skills and competencies not measured by this study. Because of their level of involvement in planning skills such as leadership, decision making, and critical t hinking may be developed as a result of the planning experience. In full model analysis, both years of 4 H membership and participation in the 4 H Legislature program were influencing Cooperation, Trust and Solidarity, and Empowerment and Political Action 4 H Service and High School Service were relationships influencing Cooperation and Trust and Solidarity. This relati onship is described in Figure 5 2 and Figure 5 3. Educ ational level variabl e had a mediating effect o n Trust and Solidarity; facilitating a nd enhancing the building of social capital
135 (Baron & Kenny, 1986) Education in building social capital is cited as important in the literature (Putnam, 2000; Conover & Searing, 2000) and youth who participated in the Degree level than the comparison group. The Florida 4 H Legislature program is not responsible for youth choosing higher education, but there is an association between participation in this event and educational level. This educational level facilitated the building of social capital as well as the Florida 4 H Legislature program. Social Capital Associations As discussed in Chap ter two a nd outlined in Figure 2 1 social c apital levels build through time. Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity levels build before Cooperation, Collective Action and Empowerment and Political Action are established (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002). In this study a building of social capital was indicated for both Cooperation and Empowerment and Political Action when comparing to the control group. This is consistent with the literature, indicating that where Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity is low the levels of social capital related to Empowerment and Political Action will also be low Implications As a result of this study we begin to uncover the influence Florida 4 H is having on communities. The study looked at whether service learning in 4 H persists into adulthood. Within the constraints of this study, the answer is a qualified yes. Youth reported and described service projects completed during 4 H and high school and documented the continuation of service to the community through de scribed service projects completed as adults. This result from the study is important to begin to document long term outcomes of 4 H programming. Capturing impacts and outcomes in
136 the youth development profession is difficult at best. Much of what is acco mplished through programs like Florida 4 H Legislature may not be expressed or demonstrated by participants until years later ( Fox et al., 2003; Ladewig & Thom a s, 1987) The second implication from this study is Empowerment and Political Action social ca pital building appears to be associated with the Florida 4 H Legislature program. Barnett and Brennan (2006) reported youth who participated in the Florida 4 H Legislature program build competencies that prepare them to engage in their communities, but we have not measured the impact of these competencies until now. This study demonstrated that 4 H Legislature alumni have higher level of Empowerment and Political Action than a comparison group that did not participate. These participants also demonstrate d higher levels of Groups and Networks social capital, which is foundational for Empowerment building. Even though our third study question did not determine that planning committee members have higher levels of social capital than Legislature participants it provided affirmation on the importance of repeated Legislature experiences and 4 H membership back in the communi ty. Identifying these relationships can help Florida 4 H develop strategies to strengthen the Florida 4 H Legislature program. The plann ing committee has additional leadership responsibilities as a part of the Legislature program and these responsibilities may detract from the social capital building experience and build other competencies not measured in this study. This study begins to d evelop an outline for positive youth development programs and a potential description of outcomes it can accomplish if the proper roadmap is established. The most relevant implication from this research is life skill development
137 programs can develop more than just the life skill. Currently, 4 H and 4 H club impacts and outcomes are captured through life skill development (Boleman, et al. 2004; Boyd et al. 1992; Guion & Rivera, 2006; Holmgren & Reid, 2007; Ward, 1996). Social c apital is not currently utilized as a tool for measuring 4 H outcomes and impacts. Using social capital can capture H is having on the community as well. Tracking both social capital and life skill development through 4 H programs can measure competency building on multiple levels; citizen development and community development. Life skill development alone does not necessarily show citizen or community development, but the potential for development in the future. Developing and tracking development of citizens that trust, feel confident to speak out, and that step up to help others are citizens that can change the face of a community and its future. This study was partially consistent with social capital research showing higher levels o f social capital; Cooperation and Empowerment and Political Action are built as a result of lower levels of social capital; Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity (Bourdieu, 1983; Paxton, 2002). Collective act ion was not consistent with the building concept. This may be due to the way that the index was measured for this study. Collective Action has been inconsistent with regard to the other social capital constructs and may need to be revised for future rese arch. The study results indicate that developing competencies through civic engagement and service learning experiences build social capital and this social capital may also be connected to 4 H c lub experience. This is consi stent with the 4 H longitudinal study currently in its third wave of data collection and reporting (Lerner et
138 al. 2008). The current study reinforces research that youth that are active in a 4 H club are provided opportunities that lead youth towards additional service learning experie nces, education, and other life experiences that further build social capital. The evidence supports the view that the Florida 4 H legislature program along with 4 H club membership builds higher levels of social capital in youth than youth that did not pa rticipate in either program. Limitations This study will reflect impacts as a result of participation in 4 H and Florida 4 H Legislature program It cannot be directly applied outside the theoretical population. It also relies on participant recall for answers about interventions and activities that occurred several years before the survey was completed. The study size is small and also limits generalization outside the theoretical population. A larger group could have provided more opportunities to generalize outside the theoretical population. This study did not use a 4 H only group, a group that participated in 4 H, but not the Legislature program. Adding this group w ould have provided a strong er three way comparison between non 4 H, 4 H, and 4 H Legislature. Confounding factors are also a limitation of this study (Rossi et al., 2004). Even though several third variable or confounding factors have been described in this study it is not clear the level of influence on the outc omes. These factors may have an influence on all three groups in the study. Educational level is a described variable that may impact levels of social capital measured and how an individual answers or interprets a question. There also may be other extran eous variables influencing outcomes that have not been measured.
139 Previous knowledge of the 4 H program is also a limitation of this study. Individuals who recognize and identify with 4 H may answer questions differently than individuals who do not have pr evious knowledge of 4 H. The 4 H group was also selected based on knowledge of the researcher, interaction with 4 H after 4 H experience, sharing email and information with Florida 4 H, and knowledge of the Florida 4 H Legislature program. This might crea te inherent differences between the 4 H and comparison groups that are unavoidable and, in turn, it may impact the outcomes. Recommendations 4 H Youth Development Recommendations This study was a very small subset of 4 H work that is happening across the nation. Social capital is not a primary measurement tool used in 4 H youth development work. It is recommended that social capital measurable tools be developed to be used in other program areas such as 4 H camping 4 H leadership programs, and 4 H club work (directly for county work). 4 H youth development professionals are report ing impacts and outcomes of 4 H programs at all levels. These reports provide justification of the program to stakeholders at the county, state, and national level. Beginning to docu ment social capital building will help establish the public value of 4 H and can have wider implications of youth development outcomes. Extension a gent education at the state and professional association level will aid in integrating social capital measurement on a large r scale. A recommended starting point is measuring outcomes and impacts of service learning happening at the communit y or county level. Simple club level evaluation tools should be developed to measure social capital development aft er one year of service experiences. This can be
140 easily built into record books and project reports. At the county level measuring one or two social capital constructs such as Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity would help set the stage for furthe r building at a state level program such as 4 H Legislature. Integrating social capital measurement into a gent reports of accomplishment is a recommended next step. Demonstrated life skill development does not make a direct communit y impact connection, bu t connecting life skill development with social capital development can help agents answer the so what question. One might ask, important the youth completed an average of five A nswers Y outh demonstrated a community network that included five business es three service organizations, and indicated they knew where to go for assistance when a these linkages can he tenuous. Specifically, s ocial capital should be integrated into the 4 H Youth Development program by age level and approached as a developmental process (s ee Figure 5 4) Florida 4 H is div ided into fou r age divisions. The first age division is five to seven year olds, called Clover buds. For this youngest age group the focus should be on the foundational social capital Groups and Networks Learning objectives should help youth understand basic networks in their community and where to go for resources. Questions to add c n H new and existing educational activities could be used to d eliver learning objectives such as tours of the community, scavenger hun ts
141 to find resources and people, and family quizzes for youth to learn how parents and other family members are networked into the community (groups they are members of, where they go for resources, etc.). Service projects are already an important part of the 4 H experience at the county level and would be good activity to integrate these learning objectives (Florida 4 H, 2010). Junior 4 eight to ten years old. This age grou p should focus on both foundational levels of social capital; Groups and Networks and Trust and Solidarity. Learning objectives would focus on addressing three questions : H activit ies to support these learning objectives would be service projects, scavenger hunts in the community and local neighborhood, and family quizzes to determine family levels of trust and how each family approaches seeking out needed resources. Community inter views would also be an important activity. Interviews with citizens who youth may need to build trust with in the future such as police, firefighters, doctors, and elected officials. Finally, beginning to plan and lead service projects within their 4 H clu b will provide youth opportunities to test community knowledge, networks, and levels of trust. Intermediate 4 13. 4 younger age divisions will be ready to develop Cooperation Collective Action and even begin to develop Empowerment and Political Action competencies. If new members join as intermediates then it will be important to provide foundational social capital building activities like the ones mentioned for younger 4 wou H l earning activities to support
142 these learning objectives would be service projects, scavenger hunts, team building, team s ervice projects, evaluating service projects as a group for impact and potential community change, and 4 H Legislature (13 year olds can participate). Senior 4 18. 4 younger age divisions will be ready to devel op Empowerment and Political Action competencies. If new 4 H members join as seniors it will be important to provide learning activities for foundational social capital to make sure competencies are adequate to move towards empowerment competencies. Lear ning objectives would focus on three subjects; how a bill becomes a law, making my vote count, and stepping up for change. 4 H learning activities to support these objectives would be leading service projects, participating in 4 H Legislature for multiple years, attending local government meetings, interviewing elected officials, and interviewing political groups. These activities will provide senior 4 begin to find their v oice in the governmental system. Florida 4 H Legislature Recommendations The Florida 4 H Legislature program is preparing for its 42 nd year of programming. This study has begun to document social capital building associated with the civic engagement educa tion program. It is recommended that the annual evaluation of life skill competency building be adjusted to include a focus on social capital building. This would include network building, trust, Cooperation and a strong focus of Empowerment and Politic al Action measurement. I t is also recommended that a one year, two year, and five year post program evaluation be completed on a random sample of participants to determine if social capital building is continuing back in their communities.
143 Finally, a Florida 4 H Legislature alumni group has been formed as a result of this research and the 40 th year celebration; it is recommended that this group be more actively fostered. Providing more communication out to the group about program successes, opportunit ies for alumni to network, and opportunities for program support to be strengthened will help provide a support system for the current program and a mechanism to continue to measure social capital building of participants. Civic Engagement Education Recomm endations The Florida 4 H Legislature program provides a week long civic engagement education program that is unique to Florida 4 H. Based on the outcomes of this study, it is recommended that this program be piloted in other states. It is also recommend ed that Florida 4 H professionals from other states to prepare them to start a Legislature program in their states. Along with the pilot program it is recommended that logic model, evaluation tools, and sample objectives for reporting be developed to help professional capture outcomes and impacts effectively. Creating these tools and a network of agents utilizing these tools will aid in collecting data on a much larger scale. It will also help develop a database of 4 H a lumni across the nation to further community impact research. Research recommendations It is recommended that this study be duplicated using 4 H alumni from multiple states. This research can build on program develop recommended previously and provide a m uch larger dataset that can be generalized across 4 H. It is recommended that 4 H alumni databases be improved so long term impacts of the program be researched and tracked. This should begin while the youth in still in the program, and
144 i nclude senior 4 into the benefits of the program. Consideration should be given to making connections between alumni and collegiate 4 H programs for program support and marketing. Alumni can be some of the best marketing tools and can also be an excellent source of volunteers. Keep ing them excited and involved can help invigorate the program It is also recommended that Florida 4 H begin a longitudinal study of the 4 H Legislature program There is a t remendous amount of anecdotal evidence to support the impacts of the program including a Florida 4 H Legislature alumni, who is currently serving as Commissioner for Agriculture in Florida. This study begins to shed light on some of the outcomes of this p rogram, but a longitudinal study may be able to make clearer connections to 4 H club influence, service learning influences, and community impacts during the experiences. It is recommended that state 4 H program leaders across the national program consider policies that create continuity within the program especially as it relates to evaluation and reporting outcomes and impacts. Determining programs that may yield strong social capital outcomes may need additional focus to ensure county and state Empowerment and Political Action social capital is an outcome for senior level 4 H civic engagement educ ation what objectives and evaluative tools should be set in advance to ensure outcomes are measured? Sharing outside the traditional state borders will also ensure that outcomes and impacts have farther reaching influences. Finally, it is recommended tha t Collective A ction as a construct be approached differently. It is suggested that a series of service learning experiences be evaluated
145 individually for social capital development. Each project be evaluated separately and other factor such as team input and dynamic be looked at for this construct as well. Chapter Summary This chapter discusses social capital results of service learning and its persistence into adulthood, Social capital differences measured as a result of this study, and difference betwee n participants of the Florida 4 H Legis lature program. It also discusses limitations and recommendations for 4 H professionals and future research.
146 Figure 5 1. Construct associatio n with s purious variables Figure 5 2. Construct association with spurious and mediator variables
147 Figure 5 3. Empowerment and Political Action association with s purious and med iator variables.
1 48 Figure 5.4. Integrating Social Capital into 4 H.
149 APPENDIX A FLORIDA 4 H AND COMMUNITIES SURVEY
167 APPENDIX B IRB APPROVALS FOR PROTOCOL #2013 U 0472
169 APPENDIX C INITIAL SURVEY INVITATION EMAIL Emails were personalized. 4 H group First week: Dear (Name), I'm working with Glenn Israel to gain an understanding of how Florida 4 H alumni impact communities. We are conducting this research so we can better understand what impact your participation in 4 H and Flo rida 4 H Legislature has on how you engage in your community as an adult. This is a short survey and should take you no more than 15 20 minutes to complete. Please click on the link below to access the survey web site and begin the survey. Your assistance on this is much appreciated! Thank you in advance, Debbie Nistler 4 H Agent and PhD Candidate Control Group First Week : Dear (Name), I am working with Dr. Glenn Israel with the University of Florida to gain an understanding of how you are impacting commun ities. We are conducting this research so we can better understand what impact your high school and teen years has had on how you engage in your community as an adult. This is a short survey and should take you no more than 15 20 minutes to complete. Plea se click on the link below to access the survey site and begin the survey. Your assistance on this is much appreciated! Thank you in advance, Debbie Nistler University of Florida Faculty and PhD Candidate
170 APPENDIX D WEEK 2 5 REMINDER SURVEY EMAIL Follow up 4 H Group weeks 2 5 Hello (Name), This is a reminder that I still need your assistance by completing the Florida 4 H and Communities survey. This research will benefit the Florida 4 H program and the Florida 4 H legislature program I hope you can s pare a few minutes to complete this survey. Please find the survey link below. Sincerely, Debbie Nistler PhD Candidate and 4 H Agent Control Group Weeks 2 5: Hello (Name), This is a reminder that I still need your assistance by completing Florida Communit ies survey. This research will help me gain an understanding of your impact on communities as a result of your high school and teen experiences. I hope you can spare a few minutes to complete this survey. Please find the survey link below. Sincerely, Deb bie Nistler University of Florida Faculty and PhD Candidate
171 APPENDIX E FINAL REMINDER SURVEY EMAIL Follow up 4 H group final week (week 6) Hello (Name), This is the final week my Florida 4 H and Communities survey will be open and I still need your ass istance. This research will benefit the Florida 4 H program and the Florida 4 H legislature program I hope you can spare a few minutes to complete this survey. Please find the survey link below. Sincerely, Debbie Nistler PhD Candidate and 4 H Agent C ontrol Group Final Week (Week 6): Hello (Name), This is the final week my Florida Communities survey will be open and I still need your assistance. This research will help me gain an understanding of your impact on communities as a result of your high scho ol and teen experiences. I hope you can spare a few minutes to complete this survey. Please find the survey link below. Sincerely, Debbie Nistler University of Florida Faculty and PhD Candidate
172 APPENDIX F RESPONDENT SERVICE PROJECTS BY CATEGORY Categories for 4 H Service Projects Clean up Making items for group (ex.nursing home) St. Jude fundraiser event Teaching event/tutoring Canned food drive On site help with organization (ex. Go to Habitat for human ity) Outside enhancement/plantings Military projects (ex. Card to troops) Teen Court International (ex. Books for Kenya, care pkgs) Promotional event for Ag or 4 H Ronald McDonald House (soda tabs) Clothing drives Disaster relief Categories for Non 4 H Service Projects Humane Society Special Olympics Big Brother, Big Sister Tutoring Diabetes Awareness Cancer walk Elderly care Literacy YMCA Blood drives Fundraisers Drug prevention Scouts Food Drives Earth Day Teen Court Candy Striper Cemetery/Memorial Ser vices Church Theatre Police Explorers Optimist Club Community Health fair
173 APPENDIX G MEANS AND SE FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES Legldrshp Mean Std. Deviation 0 Yearsmember .42 1.439 serviceYesNo .13 .467 typeparticipatio .04 .188 HighSchoolService 1.41 .493 YrsLeg 0.00 0.000 MaritalStatus 1.91 .959 EducationLevel 4.82 1.549 Gender 1.61 .489 Age 29.09 7.364 1 Yearsmember 9.74 2.837 serviceYesNo 1.07 .259 typeparticipatio .21 .413 HighSchoolService 1.89 .320 YrsLeg 3.79 1.141 MaritalStatus 1.33 .557 EducationLevel 5.64 .933 Gender 1.63 .487 Age 24.99 3.057 2 Yearsmember 8.90 3.502 serviceYesNo 1.12 .324 typeparticipatio .12 .326 HighSchoolService 1.92 .281 YrsLeg 2.93 1.388 MaritalStatus 1.33 .572 EducationLevel 5.25 1.129 Gender 1.68 .469 Age 24.78 3.289
174 APPENDIX H COLLINEARITY TEST FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES Predictors Total % of Variance Cumulative % Sums of Squares % of Variance Cumulative % Club 3.311 36.787 36.787 3.311 36.787 36.787 Yrs member 1.153 12.815 49.602 1.153 12.815 49.602 Service 1.092 12.131 61.733 1.092 12.131 61.733 Yrsleg .975 10.837 72.570 HS Serv .802 8.917 81.487 Marital .622 6.913 88.400 Age .563 6.253 94.653 Educ. .316 3.509 98.162 Gender .165 1.838 100.000
175 APPENDIX I CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PREDICTOR VARIABLES
176 APPENDIX J FREQUENCY TABLES FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS
178 REFERENCE LIST Adams, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330 354. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. American Psychological Association. (2009). Civic engagement. Civic Engagement andService Learning. APA Online Arnett, J.J. (2004). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach ( 2 nd e d .). University of Mary land, Pearson Prentice Hall. Astin, A., Sax, L., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate ye ars. The Review of Higher Education, 22 (2), 187 202. Astroth, K. ( 1996 ). Leadership in Nonformal Youth Groups: Does Style Affect Youth Outcomes? Journal of Extension 34(6), 6RIB2. Barnett, R.V. & Brennan, M.A. (2006). Integrating youth into community development: Implications for policy planning and program evaluation. Journal of Youth Development 1(2): Article 0602FA001. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1 173 1 182. Batchelder, T., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate to integrate academic learning and service: cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17 341 355. Beane, J., Turner, J., Jones, D., & Lipka, R. (1981). Long term effects of community service programs Curriculum Inquiry, 11 (2), 143 155. Beam, M. R., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2002). The nature of American Journal of Community Psychology, 30 (2), 305 325. Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2006). The social capital of blacks and whites : Differing effects of the mass media in the United States. Human Communication Research, 32 157 177. Bernard, H. (2000 ). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications.
179 Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U. & Fehr, E. (2006) Parochial altruism in humans. Nature 442(7105):912 15. Billig, S. (2000). Research on K 12 school based service learning:The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 658 664 Billig, S, & Brodersen, R. (2007). Case studies of effective practices in the partnership in character education project: Evaluation for the school district of Philadelphia. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation Bohnenberger, A. W. (2004). Blueprint for incorporating service learni ng: A basic, developmental, k 12 service learning typology Journal of Experiential Education, 27 (1), 15 31. skills gained by youth participa ting in the 4 H beef project. Journal of Extension 42 (5). Bourdieu, P. ( 1983 ). Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, NY 258pp. Bourdeau, V. ( 2004 ). 4 H Experiential learning edu cation: A model for s cience inquiry. Journal of Extension 42(5), 5TOT3. Boyd, B. (2001). Bringing leadership experience to inner city youth. Journal of Extension [On line], 39(4) Article 4FEA6. Boyd, B. L., Herring, D. R., & Briers, G. E. (1992). Developing life skills in you th. Journal of Extension [On line], 30(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a4.html B oyte, H. ( 1991 ). Community service and civic education Phi Delta Kappan 72(10), 765 767. Brehm, J & Rahn, W ( 1997 ) Individual level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital American Journal of Political Science 41 999 1023. Burman, J. T. (2008). Experimenting in r elation to Piaget: Education is a chaperoned process of adaptation Perspectives on Science, 16 (2), 160 195. Calde r, B., Phillips, L., & Tybout, A. (1982). The Concept of external validity Journal of Consumer Research, 9 240 244.
180 Camino L. & Zeldin, Z. ( 2002 a). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day to day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science 6, 212 219. Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002b). Making the transition to community youth development: Emerging roles and competencies for organizations and youth workers. In Institute for Just Communities (Eds,), Community You th Development Anthology (pp. 70 78). Campbell, D. (2000). Social Capital and Service learning. Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 641 645. Carpini, M. & Keeter, S. (2000). What should be learned through Service learning?. American Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 635 637. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin 112 (1), 155. Coleman, J. ( 1988 ). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (Suppl) S95 S120. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA Connolly, W. (1983). The terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Conover, P. & Searing, D. (2000). T he democratic purposes of education: A political socialization perspective. Rediscovering the democratic purpose of education, Lawrence University of Kansas Press. 91 124. Conrad D. & Hedin, D. ( 1991 ). School based community service What we know from resear ch and theory. Phi Delta Kappan 72(10), 743 749. Cook, K. (2001). Trust in Society Ne w York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., & Frone, M. R. (1990). Work stress and alcohol effects: A test of stress induced drinking. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31 260 276. Council, N. 4 H. (2012 ). Retrieved from www.4h.org Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen. com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political communication 17 (4), 341 349.
181 De Morris A. and Leistner, P. ( 2009 ). From neighborhood association system to participatory democracy: B roadening and deepening public involvement in Portland, Oregon National Civic Review 98(2), 47. de Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, LIV (3), 77 80. Dewey, J. (1938). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Collier Diem, K. ( 2001 ). Learn by Doing the 4 H Way Putting a Slogan into Practice Rutgers Coo perative Extension, Leader training series part IV. Dillman, D., Smyth J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd Edition. 5 12pp. Durlaf, S. & Fafchamp, M. (2004). Social Capital. University of Wisconsin and World Bank. Retrieved 11/3/2010. Working papers. Eby, L. (1998). Why Service Learning is Bad Retrieved 2011. http://www.greatlakesed.net/Resources/documents/WhyServiceLearningIsBad.p df Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating c ons c iousness raisin g tasks: P edagogically targeted and non targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (2), 119 145. Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service learning, social justice, multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development 49 (2), 95 109. Enfield, R. P., Schmitt McQuitty, L., & Smith, M. H. (2007). The development and evaluation of experiential learning workshops for 4 H voluntee rs. Journal of Extension 45 (1), 1 9. Ethridge E. & Branscomb, K. ( 2008 ). Learning through action: Parallel learning processes in children and adults. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 400 408. Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: linking service and learn ing linking students and communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (3), 517 534. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1997). The importance of program quality in service learning. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), Service learning: Application from the research (pp. 57 76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
182 Eyler J. & Giles, D. ( 1999 ). learning? San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Falk I. & Kilpatrick, S. ( 2000 ). What is social capital? A study of rural communities. Socioligia Ruralis, 40(1), 87 110. Fehr, E. & Gachter, S. ( 2002 ) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415, 137 140 Flanagan, C. A. (2004). Volunteerism, leadership, political socialization, and civic engagement. Handbook of adolescent psychology 2 721 745. Flanagan, C. & Van Horn, B. (2001). Youth civic engagement: Membership and mattering in local communities. Focus Davis: 4 H Center for Youth Development, University of California. Flora, J. L. (1998). Social Capital and Communities of Place. Rural sociology 63 (4), 48 1 506. Flora, J. (2001). The Stanford Community Studies. Public communication campaigns 193. Florida 4 H. (2010). Florida 4 H Webpage. Accessed September 2010. http://florida4h.org Frisco, M., Muller, C., & Dodson, K. (2004). Participation in voluntary youth serving associations and early adult voting behavio r. Social Science Quarterly, 85 (3), 660 767. Fox, J., Schroeder, D., & Lodl, K. (2003). Life skills development through 4 H clubs: The perspective of 4 H alumni. Journal of Extension [On line], 41 (6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/rb2.shtml 6RIB2 Fukuyama, F. ( 1995 ). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press. Furco, A., & Billig, S. (Eds.). (2002). Service learning: The essence of the pedagogy (Vol. 1). IAP. Garton, M. S., Miltenberger, M., & Pruett, B. (2007). Does 4 H camp influence life skill and leadership development ? Journal of Extension [On line] 45(4) Article 4FEA4. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2007august/a4.php General Social Survey. (2012). National cumulative social survey. Accessed February 3, 2014. http:/ /www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/
183 Gibson, C. (2001). From inspiration to participation: A review of perspectives on youth civic engagemen t. Carnegie Corporation of New York. Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of college community service laboratory on s tudents' personal, social and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17 327 339. Gittell, R. and Vidal, A ., (1998). Building social capital: community organizing as a development Sage Publishing Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital*. The Economic Journal 112 (483), F437 F458. Glaeser, E., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J., & Soutter, C. (2000). Measuring trust The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3), 811 846. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological T heory 1 (1), 201 233. Grootaer t, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire (Washington, DC, World Bank). Guion, L. A. & Rivera, B. E. (2006). Statistical testing of a measure of youth's perceived improvement in life skills Journal of Youth Development 1(2): Article 0602RS002. Hagan, J., Merkens, H., & Boehnke, K. (1995). Delinquency and disdain: Social capital and the control of right wing extremism among e ast and w est Berlin youth. American Journal of Sociology 1028 1052. Hairston, J. E. (2004). Identifying what 4 projects. Journal of Extension 42 (1). Hargittai, E. (2001). Beyond logs and surveys : In depth measures of people's web use skills Assis t Research Symposium on effective methods for studying information seeking and use (pp. 34 41). Hargittai, E., & Centeno, M. (2001). Mapping g lobalization A merican Behavioral Scientist 44 (10). Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44 (1), 197 219. Heath, S. & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers' College Press.
184 Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (1999). Education and social capital (No. w7121). National Bureau of Economic Research. Hendricks, P. A. (1998). Targeting life skills model. Iowa State University Extension. Hendricks, P. (1996). Targeting life skills model: Incorporating developmentally appropriate learning opportunities to assess impact of life skills development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Hendry, L. B., Roberts, W., Glendinning, A., & Coleman, J. C. (1992). Adolescents' perceptions of significant individuals in their lives. Journal of Adolescence Volume 15, p 255 270. Henry, G. (1990). Practical s ampling In Applied Social Research Methods Series (p. 33 59). Sage Publications. Hovelynck, J. (2001). Beyond didactics: A reconnaissance of experiential learning. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 6 (1). Howell, D. C. (2007). Treatment of missing data. The Sage handbook of social science methodology 208 224 Hunter, A. (1975). The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. American Sociological Review, 40, 537 552. Hunter, S., & Brisbin, R. A. (2000). The impact of service learning on democratic and civic values. PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (3), 623 626. Israel, G. ( 1982 ). Community & leadership structure: Persistence and change in an eastern boomtown Pennsylvani a State University, University Park Pennsylvania. I srael, G. (2009). Sampling Issues: Non response. Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida. PEOD09. April. Israel, G., Beaulieu, L., & Hartless, G. ( 2001 ). The influence of family and community social capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociology 66(1), 43 68. Israel, G., Coleman D., & Ilvento, T. ( 1993 ). Involving youth in community needs assessment. Journal of Community Development Society 24(2), 249 71. Israel, G. D., & Ilvento, T. W. (1995, April). Everybody wins: Involvin g youth in community needs assessment. Journal of Extension 33(2). http://www.joe.org/joe/1995april/a1.html
185 Kawachi I & Berkman L F. Social cohesion, social capital, and health : Social E pidemiology New York : Oxford University Press, 174 190. Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 1 (2), 137 149. Keefe, D. A. (2008). Usin g social construction theory as a found ation for macro level interventions in communities impacted by HIV and ad dictions. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 35 (2), 111 126. Kelsey, L. D., & Hearne, C. C. (1963). Cooperative extension work Comstock Publishing Associates Kolb A. and Kolb, D. ( 2008 ). The l earning w ay : Meta cognitive aspects of experiential learning Simulation and Gaming 40(3), 297 327 D oi: 10.1177/1046878108325713 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D.A., Baker, A.C., & Jensen, P.J., 2002. Conversation as experiential learning. In: Conversational learning: an experiential approach to knowledge creation. Quorum Books, U S p. 51 66 Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experi ential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p 228 47. Kolb, D. and Kolb, A., (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(2), 193 212. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out (p. 2 10). Chicago: Acta Publications. Kurth Schai, R. (1988). The roles of youth in society : A r econceptualization. The Educational Forum, 52 (2), 113 132. Ladewig, H., & Thomas, J. K. (1987). Assessing the impact of 4 H on former members. The Texas A&M University System Larsen, L., Harlan, S. L., Bolin, B., Hackett, E. J., Hope, D., Ki rby, A., & Wolf, S. (2004). Bonding and bridging understanding the relationship between social capital and civic action. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24 (1), 64 77.
186 Leijen, A., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., Simons, R., & Admiraal, W. (2009). Strea ming video to Computers and Education 169 176. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Phelps, E. (2008). The positive development of youth. Medford, MA: Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts U niversity, Lincoln Filene Center Likert, R (1932). A t echnique fo r the measurement of attit udes. Archives of Psychology 140, 1 55. Liebrucks, A. (2001). The c oncept of social construction Theory & Psychology, 11 (3), 363 391. Lin, N. (2001). Guanxi: A conceptual analysis. Contributions i n Sociology 133 153 166. Lin, S. (2002). Piaget's d evelopmental s tages In B. Hoffman, Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (p. 3). Lisi, R. D. (2002). From marbles to instant messenger: I mplications of P iaget's ideas about peer learn ing. Theory into Practice, 41 (1), 5 12. Locke, B., Boyd, B., & Howard, J. (2007). Service Learn ing and Leadership Life Skills: An Experimental Study. Journal of Youth Development, 2(1), 52 67. Loury, G. (197 7). A dynamic theor y of racial income differen ces. Women, Minorities and Em ployment Discrimination. Lexington Books. Luloff, A. E., & Bridger, J. (2003). Community agency and local development. C hallenges for rural America in the twenty first century 203 213. Luloff, A. E., & Swanson, L. E. (1995). Community agency and disaffection: enhancing collective resources. Investing in people: The human capital needs of rural America 351 372. Luloff, A. E., & Wilkinson, K. P. (1977). Is community alive and w ell in the inner city?. American Sociological Review 42 (5), 827 828. Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning 33 (1), 5 33. Marra, R., & Bogue, B. (2006). A c ritical assessment of online survey tools Women in Engineering Programs and Advocate s Network
187 McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. America n sociological review 71 (3), 401 425. McLeod, J.M., Daily, K., Guo, Z. S., Eveland, W.P., Bayer, J., Yang, S. C., & Wang, H. (1996). Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research 23, 179 209. McMullan, W. E., & Cahoon, A. (1979). Integrating abstract conceptualizing with experiential learning. Academy of Management Review 4 (3), 453 458. Melchior, J. (1999). Bringing the citizen back in: T he Case of the IGC 1996. IHS Political Science Series 6 3, July. Millar, M. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2011). Improving response to web and mixed mode surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2), 249 269. Miller, J. & Bowen, B. (1993). Competency, coping, and contributory life skills development of early adolescents Journal of Agricultural Education 34 (1), 68 76. Morss, B. S. (2002). Social construction in a world at risk: T oward a psychology of experience Theory Psychology, 12 (4), 509 531. Mouffe, C. (1992). Democratic citizenship and the political community. Dimensions of radical democracy: pluralism, citizenship, community 225 239 Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review 23 (2), 242 266. Nardi, P. M. (2006). Interpreting Data. Pearson Education, Inc. National 4 H Council, 2010 (1990). National and Community Service Act. Ngai, N. & Cheung, C. (1997). Participation in Youth Center Activities A Sequential Specificity Approach. Youth & Society 29 (2), 238 253. Niemi, H. (2000) Teacher Education in Finland: Current Trends and Future Scenarios Paper presented at the seminar Teac her Education Policies in Lisbon accessed online June 2010. NIFA. (2013). United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture website. Access December 2013. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ Nunnally, J. (1966). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
188 Obradov i J. a. (200 7). Developmental Antecedents of Young Adult Civic Engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 11 (1), 2 19. engagement. Applied developmental science 11 (1), 2 19. Olson, C. A., & Croymans, S. R. (2008). Strengthening 4 H youth consumer decisionmaking skills: Contest to community service. Journal of Extension 46 (1). Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (1), 23 42. Ostrander, S. A. (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly 33 (1), 74 93. Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G. (2004). Experiential learning. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology Papanastasiou, C., & Koutselini, M. (2003). Developmental model of democratic values and attitudes toward social actions. International Journal of Edu cational Research, 39 539 549. Paxton, P. ( 2002 ) Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship American Sociological Review 6 7(2), 254 27 7. Pearce, N. J., & Larson, R. W. (2006). Article Views: 123. Applied Developmental Science 10 (3). Piaget, J. (1950). The p sychology of i ntelligence San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Putnam, R., (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politic s 28, 664 683. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of american community New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. & Feld stein, L. (2003). Better t ogether : Restoring the American community New York: Simon & Schuster Reck, F.M. (1951). The 4 H Story. A history of 4 H Clubwork. National 4 H Service Committee, Iowa State University Press. Reinders, H., & Youniss, J. (2006). School based required community service and civic development in adolescents Applied Developmental Science, 10 (1), 2 12.
189 Rishel, C., Esther, S., & Koeske, G. F. (2005). Relationships with non parental adults and child behavior. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journa l 22(1). Roffilli, M. V. (2007). A psychogenetic alg orithm for behavioral sequence learning. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 16 (2), 195 217. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social tru st. World P olitics 58 (01), 41 72. Sabatini, F. (2009). Social capital as social networks: A new framework for measurement and an empirical analysis of its determinants and consequences. The Journal of Socio Economics, 38, 429 442. Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research 8 (1), 3 15. Seita, J. (1994, Summer). Children on the edge: Resiliency from the other side of the desk. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 15 18 Se lman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic. Shah, V., Kwak, N. & Holbert, R. L (2001). "Connecting" and disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Co mmunication 18 (2), 141 162. Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development Applied Developmental Science, 6 (4), 264 272. Schmitt McQuitty, L., & Smith, M. H. (2010). Moving Beyond the Demonstration Model: The Importance of Experiential Learning in the 4 H Youth Development Program. Youth Development 83 Stafford, J., Boyd, B., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). Community service versus service learning: Which is best for 4 H. Journal of Extension 41 (6). Stone, W. (2001). Measuring social capital: towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in f amily and community life. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Research paper No. 24, 33pp. Sugarman, L. (1985). Kolb's model of experiential learning: Touchstone for trainers, students, counselors, and clients. Journal of Counseling and Development 64 264 268. Tenenbaum, I. (2000, May). Building a framework for service learning: The South Carolina Experience. Phi Delta Kappan 666 669.
190 Terry, A., & Bohnenberger, J. E. (2003). Service learning: Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 1, 23 30. Terry, A., & Bohnenberger, J. E. (2004). Blueprint for incorporating service lear ning: A basic developmental, K 12 service learning typology Journal for Experiential Education, 27 (1), 15 31. Theodori, G. (2005). Community and community development in resource based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society and Natural Resources 18 (7), 661 669. Topcu, A. (2007). 'Intentional repetition' and learning style: Increasin g efficient and cohesive interaction in asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 901 919. Torney development in the United States: Rese arch results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36 (2), 111 125. Torney Purta, J., Losito, B., & Mintrop, H. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA. UC STEL University of California Science, Technology, and Environmental Literacy Workgroup. (2005). Welcome to Experiential Learning! Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://www.experientiallearning.ucdavis.edu/default.shtml Vandell, D., Pierce, K. & Dadisman, K. (2005). Out of school settings as a developmental context for children and youth. Advances in child development and behavior 33 43 77. Van Horn, B. E., F lanagan, C. A., & Thomson, J. S. (1998). The first fifty years of the 4 H program. Journal of Extension 36 (6). Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1996). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Political Science Quarterly 111 (4), 706 706. Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 25 34. Walzer, M. (1990). What does it mean to be an American "?. Social Research, 57, 591 614.
191 Ward, C. K. (1996). Life skill development related to participation in 4 H animal science projects. Journal of Extension [On line], 34(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996april/rb2.html 2RIB2 Warren, R. ( 1978 ). The Community in America. Rand McNally, Chicago. 448pp. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences Sage. Weber, J. A., & McCullers, J. C. (1986). The blue ribbon: An American way of life. O ccupations 64 42 9. Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Wessel, T. & Wessel, M. (1982). 4 H: An American i dea National 4 H Counci l. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen ? The politics of educating for democracy American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2), 237 269. Wilkinson, K. ( 1991 ). The community in rural america Greenwood Press, Contributions in Sociology Number 95. 141pp. Wilson, J. P. (Ed.). (2002). The power of experiential learning: A handbook for trainers and educators Kogan Page Publishers Woolcock, M. (2004). Why and how planners should take social capital seriously. Journal of the Ame rican Planning Association 70 (2), 183 189. Woolcock, M. ( 1998 ). Social capital and economic development: T oward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework Theory and Society 27(2), 151 208. World B ank (2000). World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty New York: Oxford University Press. Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (Eds.). (1999). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth Cambridge University Press. Youniss, J. (2002). Visions of char ity: Volunteer workers and moral community. 182 183. Youniss, J. (2009). Why we need to learn more about youth civic engagement. Social Forces 88 (2), 971 975. Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty first century. Journal of R esearch on A dolescence 12 (1), 121 148.
192 Youniss, J., Mclellan, J., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in identity development: Normative, unconventional, and de viant operations. Journal of Adolescent Research 14: 248. DOI: 10.1177/0743558499142006. Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral civic identi ty: A case for everyday morality Educational Psychology Review 11 (4), 361 376. Zeldin, S., McDaniel, A., Topitzes, D., & Calvert, M. (2000). Youth in decision making: A study on the impact of youth on adults and organizations A report developed by the University of Wisconsin Madison and the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development, Chevy Chase, MD. Ziemke, T. (2001). The construction of 'Reality' in the robot: Constructivist perspectives on situated artficial intelligence and adaptative robotics. Foundations of Science, 6 163 233.
193 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Debora h grew up on a small farm in Western Oregon where she was active in 4 H and FFA showing cattle and sheep. She received her FFA State Farmer Degree and participated in FFA Work Experience abroad. She worked as a Jillaroo in Southeast Queensland Australia fo r a year before starting college. She received her B.S. from Oregon State University in Wildlife Science in 1992 and M.S. in Agricultural Education from Oregon State University in 1997. She served as 4 H Extension Agent in Klamath County, Oregon as a facu lty for Oregon State University from 1997 1999. She served as Clallam County, Washington 4 H Extension Agent from 1999 2003 as faculty for Washington State University. Deborah Nistler is currently a faculty member of University of Florida IFAS Extension si nce 2003. She has served in a lead role planning and facilitating the Florida 4 H Legislature program since 2004. She served as National President of the National Association of 4 H Extension Agents in 2012. She also served on the board for the National J oint Council of Extension Professionals. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the spring of 2014.
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EMYP37M0F_8I5RM1 INGEST_TIME 2014-10-03T21:28:09Z PACKAGE UFE0046588_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC