764089

research-article2018
JARXXX10.1177/0743558418764089Journal of Adolescent ResearchWorker et al.

Article
Journal of Adolescent Research
2019, Vol. 34(1) 30­–54
Promoting Positive © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Youth Development sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0743558418764089
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418764089
Through Teenagers-as- journals.sagepub.com/home/jar

Teachers Programs

Steven M. Worker1, Anne M. Iaccopucci1,

Marianne Bird1 , and Marcel Horowitz1

Abstract
A promising approach to support positive youth development is having
adolescents serve as teachers for younger children. Through a qualitative
interview study, we explored adolescents’ development in their role serving
as teachers for younger elementary-age children during out-of-school
time; programs were managed by the University of California 4-H Youth
Development Program. We interviewed 32 teenagers (median age 15; 27
female, 5 male) about their experiences, growth, and learning. Through
consensus-based inductive thematic analysis, we identified 26 codes that we
analytically sorted and found they aligned with the six indicators outlined by
the Five Cs of the positive youth development model. Adolescents reported
positive experiences and their own growth in competence, confidence,
connection, caring, character, and contribution. Furthermore, data indicated
that contributing in a meaningful way was developed in tandem with the
other Cs.

Keywords
teenagers-as-teachers, cross-age teaching, positive youth development

1University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, USA

Corresponding Author:
Steven M. Worker, University of California Cooperative Extension, Marin, 1682 Novato
Boulevard, Suite 150B, Novato, CA 94947-7021, USA.
Email: smworker@ucanr.edu
Worker et al. 31

Background
Positive youth development (PYD) is an approach to understand, research,
and guide program practice (J. V. Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009;
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine [NRCIM], 2002). A
promising program practice to support PYD is having adolescents serve as
teachers of younger children, known as teenagers-as-teachers (Murdock,
Lee, & Paterson, 2003), cross-age teaching (Shanahan, 2015), or youth as
teachers (National Commission on Resources for Youth, 1974). This article
reports on adolescent outcomes from five teenagers-as-teachers programs.
We conducted semistructured interviews with the adolescents and asked them
to describe their experiences, what was important to them, and what they
thought they learned. We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive the-
matic analysis.

Theory of PYD
PYD has gained momentum as an asset-based alternative to prevailing deficit
models of adolescent development (R. M. Lerner et al., 2011). A primary
assumption is that positive development is promoted across the life span
when the ecological assets surrounding an individual are arranged well, by
oneself and/or others (R. M. Lerner, Bowers, Geldhof, Gestsdottir, &
DeSouza, 2012). PYD promotes a holistic perspective of youth well-being
and thus integrates multiple outcome indicators (J. V. Lerner et al., 2009;
NRCIM, 2002). As a whole, PYD frameworks promote holistic viewpoints of
well-being while emphasizing the interdependent role of individual agency
and supportive environments (Heck & Subramaniam, 2009). A plethora of
PYD frameworks exist with multiple definitions, lists of outcomes, and prac-
tices; see Heck and Subramaniam (2009), R. M. Lerner et al. (2011), and
Synder and Flay (2012).
The Five Cs of PYD is a prominent model advancing five outcome indica-
tors: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (R. M.
Lerner, 2004, 2007). The Cs represent an integrated list of positive indicators
that are mutually reinforcing, do not have an upper limit, and are hypothe-
sized to lead to the manifestation of a sixth C—contribution. Together, they
describe a thriving life trajectory (R. M. Lerner, 2004). While the literature
refers to the model as Five Cs, here we integrate contribution and refer to the
set of indicators as just the Cs. The Five Cs of PYD model hypothesizes that
contribution emerges when the other Cs are present (R. M. Lerner, 2004),
thus young people who display the Five Cs will become active contributors
to themselves, their families, communities, and the world (J. V. Lerner et al.,
32 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

2009). Contribution takes many forms such as contribution to family by help-

ing with chores, to schools by participating in school government, and to
communities by volunteering.

Teenagers-as-Teachers Program Model

Having adolescents serve as teachers of younger children is a promising
approach to support PYD. Adolescents are well-situated for teacher roles
due to their cognitive and social-emotional development and readiness for
independence. The teenagers-as-teachers model places adolescents in the
role of teacher, providing an opportunity to learn about themselves in a new
context. Teenagers learn child development, engage in real-time problem
solving, and gain practice evaluating their own teaching skills (Emil,
Dworkin, & Skelly, 2007; Murdock et al., 2003). Teenagers often relate well
with children, and children often look up to teenagers, thus helping to estab-
lish a positive learning environment (Ponzio & Peterson, 1999). Programs
provide opportunities for adolescents to be engaged in a socially meaningful
and useful way in their own development and the growth of the younger age
children (Shanahan, 2015).
Previous empirical work demonstrated that these roles provide benefits to
the teenagers and the children. Dean and Murdock (1992) conducted a study
with 14 adolescents to assess outcomes from teenagers teaching science to
fifth-grade students. Academic behaviors remained constant (e.g., participat-
ing in class activities, missing homework), half reported increased science
interest, and all reported willingness to participate again. Jorgensen (2000)
interviewed 89 teenagers implementing science lessons with elementary chil-
dren. Teenagers reported gaining insights into teaching and dynamics of
working in teams, along with developing a more positive view of science.
Murdock et al. (2003) theorized that teenagers-as-teachers programs support
the advancement of abstract thinking, identity work, provide a sense of
autonomy, improve academic achievement, and support youth into their tran-
sition to adulthood. Hammond-Diedrich and Walsh (2006) utilized interviews
and field notes to explore a program involving 11- to 15-year-olds teaching
physical education to fourth-grade students. They found that teenagers
improved their teaching skills, performance in school, and sense of responsi-
bility. Bird and Subramaniam (2011) surveyed 44 teenagers responsible for
teaching science lessons at an overnight environmental educational camp.
Participants reported improving their organizational abilities, skills working
with children, and public speaking, in addition to feeling as though they con-
tributed to their community. Other researchers demonstrated that teenagers
improved their teaching skills (Ripberger, Devitt, & Gore, 2009), social and
Worker et al. 33

emotional learning (Shanahan, 2015), and a greater understanding of child

development (Schine & Campbell, 1989).
Despite these empirical efforts, teenagers-as-teachers has not received as
much attention as cross-age tutoring (Devin-Sheehan, Feldman, & Allen, 1976)
and mentoring (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Karcher, 2005;
Karcher & Nakkula, 2010). Teenagers serving in a teacher role differ from that
as a peer mentor or tutor because in a teacher role, youth assume a larger respon-
sibility for the program’s success (Shanahan, 2015). Adolescents are the lead
teachers of a subject matter curriculum where they introduce new information.
This is in contrast with mentoring or tutoring where teenagers review previously
taught concepts, assist adults, or informally share experiences. In a teacher role,
adolescents are responsible for working with groups of students, rather than the
one-on-one experience typical of tutoring or mentoring.
Methodologically, previous research on adolescent outcomes in youth
development programs has often employed a priori constructs relying on
quantitative measures (R. M. Lerner, 2007). Within the Cs framework, there
has been very little qualitative empirical work to understand experiences
from young people’s point-of-view (but see Hershberg, DeSouza, Warren,
Lerner, & Lerner, 2014) and why they thought these experiences were (or
were not) significant or meaningful. In addition, there is limited empirical
research demonstrating adolescent outcomes from participating in teenagers-
as-teachers programs utilizing a PYD framework. Furthermore, PYD research
has mostly been conducted in White, middle-class populations and not in
culturally diverse groups (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006; J. V.
Lerner et al., 2009). The present study addresses some of these concerns.

Method
We conducted this study to address the question, What do adolescents
describe as their own growth through participating in a teenagers-as-teach-
ers program? The question supported an exploratory approach, so we
employed a multisite, semistructured interview design to solicit adolescent
experiences from their participation in teenagers-as-teachers programs
(Seidman, 2013). We analyzed interviews using inductive thematic analysis
and did not initially rely on an established coding scheme. We then analyti-
cally sorted the resulting 26 codes and found that they aligned with the six
indicators in the Five Cs of PYD (J. V. Lerner et al., 2009).

Participants
Participants were selected from five teenagers-as-teachers programs operated
by the University of California 4-H Youth Development Program. Programs
34 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

provided elementary-age children with experiential opportunities related to

science, environment, and gardening. Programs utilized a similar program
model, although they varied in the demographics of elementary students, the
curriculum, training provided to teenagers, and support provided by adults
(see Table 1). Adult program leaders invited all adolescents from each pro-
gram to participate in the study. We obtained parental consent and youth
assent prior to the interviews. We interviewed approximately half of the pro-
gram participants; however, program participation was calculated for school-
year enrollment and some youth only participated in the first of two program
cycles. Interviews were conducted in the second cycle, so only youth who
were participating in both (or the second) cycle would have been offered an
interview. Of those, a few youth declined to be interviewed, some youth did
not provide a parental informed consent form, and there were scheduling
conflicts where the young person was not available on the day the interview
team was present at the program site.
We conducted 24 interviews with 32 youth (ages 11 to 19; median age =
15; 27 female, 5 male; 18 Latino, 8 White, 4 Asian, 2 Black) in two waves
during the spring of 2013 (n = 9) and 2014 (n = 23). The sample demograph-
ics were generally representative of adolescent program participants on gen-
der, age, and race (see Table 1). Participation duration for youth in the sample
ranged from brief (3 months) to long-term (4 years), which was representa-
tive of all youth participants at three of the five sites. Sample youth at the
other two sites were generally involved in the program for longer than their
counterparts. Youth were given the option to be interviewed individually or
in pairs to decrease anxiety, establish trust, bridge cultural differences, and
lessen inherent power imbalances between interviewer (adult) and respon-
dents (youth; Bassett, Beagan, Ristovski-Slijepcevic, & Chapman, 2008).
Eleven youth were interviewed in pairs (average length = 33 minutes) and 13
youth were interviewed individually (average length = 20 minutes). While
interviews with pairs resulted in longer transcripts, we did not detect any
significant differences in the content generated compared with single
interviews.

Procedures
The semistructured interview protocol consisted of 21 prompt stems designed
to elicit participants’ experiences in the program, motives for becoming
involved, reflections on working with children, thoughts about their own
development, contemplations on relationships, and programmatic supports
(e.g., training and curriculum). The interview team consisted of the first
author (White male, conducted 14 interviews), second author (White female,
conducted seven interviews), and the Science Program coordinators (Latino
 Table 1.  Research Site Descriptions and Sample Demographics.

Population Sample
Teenager program Teenagers interviewed
Site participants (N = 82) (n = 32) Site/program description
Youth N = 20 n=8 Teenagers facilitated science programming once per week
experiences in 10 female, 10 male 7 female, 1 male for 16 weeks at an afterschool site in a central valley city.
science program 8 Latino, 3 White, 2 1 Latino, 1 White, 2 Session served approximately 20 second-grade Latino,
Black, 7 Asian Black, 4 Asian Black, and Asian children. Teenagers, recruited from local
Median age: 15 Median age: 14 high schools, attended a 2-day training and were provided
  Participation duration: support by an adult coach.
3 months to 1 year
Environmental N = 23 n=3 The 3-day overnight camp, held twice, took place at an
education camp 19 female, 4 male 3 female outdoor facility in Northern California and served 140
9 Latino, 5 White, 1 Latina, 2 White racially diverse fourth- to sixth-grade students (70 children
2 Black, 3 Asian, 4 Median age: 17 in each camp) from elementary schools in a central valley
other/unknown Participation duration: city. Teenagers facilitated activities about the natural
Median age: 17 2 to 4 years (i.e., 2 to world and the environment to rotating groups of 14
  4 camps) children. Teenagers recruited from local high schools
attended multiple days of training.
Farm to fork N = 14 n=4 Teenagers facilitated agriculture and gardening programming
program 13 female, 1 male 3 female, 1 male once per week for 12 weeks at an afterschool site in
1 Latino, 13 White 4 White a rural town in Northeast California. The site served
Median age: 15.5 Median age: 17 approximately 35, first- to second-grade White and
  Participation duration: Latino children. Teenagers recruited from the community
3 months to 2 years attended a brief training and were provided support by an
adult coach.

35
(continued)
36
Table 1. (continued)

Population Sample
Teenager program Teenagers interviewed
Site participants (N = 82) (n = 32) Site/program description
Nature club N = 10 n=5 The program met once per week for 10 weeks at a housing
7 female, 3 male 4 female, 1 male site in a central valley town serving approximately
8 Latino, 1 White, 1 5 Latino 20 kindergarten to third-grade Latino children.
Black Undergraduates from a local university jointly facilitated
Median Age: 12.5 Median age: 12 science and environmental activities with local teenagers.
  Participation duration: The undergraduates selected, adapted, and sometimes
1 to 2 years developed activities. Teenagers attended a 3-hr training
prior to the program.
Science program N = 15 n = 12 The weekly program took place at an elementary school
11 female, 4 male 10 female, 2 male in a small rural town outside of San Diego for 18 weeks.
14 Latino, 1 White 11 Latino, 1 White The program served approximately 20 fifth-grade Latino
Median age: 16 Median age: 15.5 students. Teenagers, recruited from the high school,
  Participation duration: planned and facilitated science and gardening activities.
1 to 2 years Local elementary and high school teachers, acting as
coaches, provided sample curricula to teenagers, and the
teenagers then selected and facilitated activities. Teenagers
participated in a brief training prior to the program.
Worker et al. 37

female, conducted two interviews; and White female, conducted one inter-
view). We conducted 22 interviews in English and two in Spanish. We
recorded and transcribed interviews. Participants’ names are pseudonyms.

Analysis
We applied inductive thematic analysis “without trying to fit it into a pre-exist-
ing coding frame” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 83) to search “across a data set
. . . to find repeated patterns of meaning” (p. 86). The research team analyzed
interview transcripts collaboratively, through a consensus-based and system-
atic process designed to emphasize diverse perspectives. Through this consen-
sus-based process, codes were anchored to the transcript. By defining each
code from excerpts, the emerging codes served to mediate our interactions. Our
process of establishing a coding scheme was less about data reduction and
more about making meaning from an individual’s narrative. We applied attri-
bute coding to each transcript to record pertinent information (Saldaña, 2016),
for example, site, single or pair interview, age, gender, ethnicity.
Specifically, to begin, we employed initial coding (Corbin & Strauss,
2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The team (all authors) coded the longest tran-
script; we developed our own codes, applied to the transcript, and then, as a
group, discussed our reasoning and evidence. We sought evidence of youth
outcomes, that is, searching the transcript guided by the prompt, What did the
participants say they had learned, gained, improved, or recognized about
themselves in this program? The outcome from this process was a list of 38
initial codes. The lead and second authors then independently coded two
additional transcripts and reached consensus on code application: the code
list was modified. The full team reviewed code applications and reached
agreement; this resulted in a slightly revised code list. To analyze the remain-
ing transcripts, each author was randomly assigned a subset of transcripts and
worked independently. A researcher was assigned as an auditor to review the
coder’s completed transcript. This approach—primary coder and secondary
auditor—was a form of accountability seeking to reach intercoder agreement
(Cornish, Gillespie, & Zittoun, 2013).
After all transcripts were analyzed, we prepared analytical memos repre-
senting patterns within each code. Through an iterative process, each of us
searched for trends supported by transcript data, actively searched for nega-
tive cases, and came to consensus regarding the evidence-backed claim.
Excerpts were often marked with multiple codes, which revealed the com-
plexity in studying young people’s perceptions of their experience. This pro-
cess involved merging of codes with similar excerpts or conceptual
similarities, which resulted in a final list of 26 codes (see Table 2). The first
38 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

Table 2.  Our Emergent Codes Grouped Into Themes: Motivation and the Six Cs
of Positive Youth Development.

Category Code
Motives Extrinsic incentives
Fun and curiosity
Leadership and teaching (opportunities to lead and teach)
Personal connection to program
Competence Coconstruction (capabilities to learn and teach with others)
Conflict resolution
Flexibility
Foresight
Leadership skills
Self-awareness (realizing one’s influence with self and others)
Self-regulation
Sociability (less shy)
Teaching skills (including public speaking, preparation for teaching,
program organization, and problem solving)
Confidence Self-efficacy
Self-esteem
Connection Relating and building relationships (with children, peers, and adults)
Sense of belonging (young person’s described feelings of belonging)
Working with peers and adults (specific to the program)
Character Compromise
Overcoming perceived limitations (courage)
Responsibility and commitment to program
Caring Compassion
Empathy
Contribution Agency (one’s independent capability to act on one’s will)
Impact in the program
Meaningfulness (helping people, making a difference, feeling of a
sense of importance and purpose to the world.)

transcript was coded by hand while the remainder were coded with computer
assisted qualitative coding software (Dedoose, 2016).
As a next analytical step, we reviewed excerpts and organized codes into
similar groupings, based on group consensus. As codes were grouped, we
observed that groupings reflected an existing theoretical framework, the six
indicators of the Five Cs of PYD (e.g., R. M. Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, Lewin-
Bizan, & Bowers, 2010). We moved forward with analytically sorting each
code into a C based on the construct definitions (e.g., R. M. Lerner et al.,
Worker et al. 39

2010). When disagreements arose on the organization of a handful of codes

into a specific category, we discussed disagreements until reaching a consen-
sus. The result was most codes being associated with a C (see Table 2).
Several codes related to motivation were categorized under a separate theme.
Trustworthiness was strengthened, in part, by bringing four perspectives
to bear on representations of data. Our research team’s background was
diverse, including experience in informal learning contexts, program evalua-
tion, and child and human development. In addition, we employed two forms
of triangulation: data triangulation (multiple interviews from multiple sites)
and analyst triangulation (four investigators analyzing data; Patton, 2015).

Findings
Transcribed narratives provided a rich tapestry of data grounded in the par-
ticipants’ experience. While our task was identifying emergent themes in per-
ceived learning and development across sites, there was ample variation in
how youth reflected upon, made sense of, and articulated their experience. As
we analyzed, coded, and interpreted transcripts, we found evidence for
growth in each C for every participant common across sites. We present our
findings, first briefly describing the motives for youth to join, and then by
each respective C.
Almost all (28 of 32) teenagers had a personal invitation from a friend or
adult. While socializing with peers and satisfying school community service
requirements may have been initial reasons cited for joining, adolescents
reported that they continued for other reasons, including personal enjoyment,
opportunities to work with peers, building connections with the children they
taught, receiving positive reactions by the younger children, and feelings of
importance and meaningfulness in practicing and mastering their roles.

Competence
All 32 teenagers interviewed discussed developing leadership skills as it
related to a host of abilities including teaching, public speaking, organizing
activities and logistics, planning and preparation of lessons, speaking in front
of others, issuing instructions, and posting questions. When asked what
advice they would give to other youth leaders, Gloria said,

Probably to just plan. . . . like have lesson plans all ready and stuff because at
the beginning we wouldn’t really have that many ideas so we would sit at our
meeting and we’d be like, “Oh, what are we going to do?” Now we just get the
hang of it and we’re just like, “Oh, we should do this, this, and this.” (Gloria,
age 15, Science Program)
40 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

These words show Gloria’s growing competence serving in a teaching role.

Teenagers also spoke about program organization, group management, logis-
tics, and transportation. Problem solving during the sessions was also noted,
for example, splitting children into groups when an activity was not working
as intended, adapting curriculum before sessions or during the implementa-
tion, discussing activities and plans with each other, and trying to find solu-
tions to shared challenges.
Teenagers spoke about leadership using the words “role model,” “team-
work,” and “determination” in relation to their role as a teacher and leader,
while describing the balance between “being fun” and “being in charge” with
respect to younger children. Concurrently, teenagers reflected on their grow-
ing sense of leadership in relationship to the children.

When we first started, they [children] didn’t think of us as a leader, they thought
of us as one of their peers, ’cause we’re only a few years older than them. So
then, after a few weeks they would start to understand that we’re there teaching
them something and they would listen. (Miyu, age 14, Youth Experiences in
Science)

Like Miyu, teenagers (24 of 32) reported a growing realization that children
would treat them with respect, even given only a few years difference in age.
Although two sites provided multiple-day training sessions to prepare teen-
agers in the use of pedagogical methods, the interviews demonstrated that at
all sites competence arose from issues of practice, that is, teenagers described
their growing competence because of the teacher role and not the training
itself.

Confidence
Adolescents (24 of 32) reported growing more comfortable and confident
over the course of the program in connection with teaching and working with
younger children. Participation as a teacher led adolescents to recognize that
they served as role models and that children were looking up to them. This
also helped teenagers feel more secure and confident. Many participants (20
of 32) described initial anxiety, introversion, and/or nervousness and, through
serving as a teacher, becoming more comfortable and confident over time.
Alejandro (age 14, Nature Club) stated, “I’m not really that nervous going in
front of people anymore.” Like other adolescents, Mason described what he
reflected as the most difficult activity.

Getting up in front of people and talking. I’m generally an introvert; I’m not a
talking-in-front-of-people kind of guy. But that program forced me to . . . go up
Worker et al. 41

in front of people and talk and work with kids and be in a leadership position
where all eyes are on me . . . that was a small way, a building block. . . . like a
starting point for me as far as taking on leadership positions and having
responsibility. (Mason, age 19, Farm to Fork Program)

A handful of adolescents reflected on how their growing confidence influ-

enced their career goals. They recognized that the role forced them to move
outside their comfort zone, be present in front of people, and employ public
speaking skills. Teenagers also attributed this teaching role to improving their
confidence to assume other leadership positions. While teenagers described
their confidence building mostly in relation to the teaching role, as opposed
to other areas in their lives, the teaching role and the skills that are part of it
(e.g., public speaking, leadership) will be useful in future educational and
career endeavors. Thus, by participating and growing these skills, teenagers
may be more confident in future situations where they are required to mani-
fest similar skills.

Connection
All 32 participants described working with others and most (27 of 32) dis-
cussed relationships they built with the children they taught, the adults they
worked with, and their peers. Strengthening connections related strongly to
what teenagers reported enjoying about the program. Participants described
their work with children as fun and enjoyable. They repeatedly mentioned
being, and bonding, with the younger youth as a positive aspect.

I felt admired because when they had a question toward me, I would see the
shine in their eyes and I was like, “Okay, so they’re looking up to me; I’m not
going to let them down.” So that was probably one of the best experiences of
my life and I want to continue doing it next year. (Adelia, age 18, Science
Program)

Connection between teenagers and children emerged as a powerful experi-

ence. Teenagers felt special because of their status and they also felt the
authority in their role. Several adolescents voiced trepidation in working with
the younger children and wondered whether children would respect them.
Teenagers occasionally struggled to gain respect from the children they
taught, and identified circumstances, such as age and familiarity, that influ-
enced their ability to form respectful teacher–student relationships. Baako
(age 12, Youth Experiences in Science) said, “I think the hardest part was
trying to talk to them, because everyone knows that I’m the youngest one
42 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

here.” Kanya (age 13, Youth Experiences in Science) shared, “Well, I already
knew half of them so it was already challenging ’cause they saw me as a peer,
not as an authority.”
Teenagers (31of 32) described working with adults where adults sup-
ported, coached, and encouraged their involvement in decision making.
Teenagers found experiences meaningful when adults displayed a personal
connection through support, respect, equality, and mutuality for them in their
role as teachers. Adults filled supportive roles including handling practical
tasks, assisting in organizing lessons, and helping teenagers reflect upon their
experience.

I’m really fascinated about how we talk about what we do during spring break
or what’s our summer plans. I really like that. I mean, getting that personal
connection with them [adults] kind of feels, it makes you feel more comfortable
working with them especially. (Yuri, age 15, Youth Experiences in Science)

Establishing friendships with peers was both a motivating and important

outcome. The program provided opportunities for teenagers to meet, work
with, and rely on peers. Teenagers commonly reported volunteering for the
program because their friends were involved. Over time in the program, they
reported deepening their connections with new peers. A group of teenagers
expressed concern or fear of not knowing others, or being left out, when start-
ing their project.

To be honest, at first I was really nervous too, because I didn’t know anyone
also. My stepdad came with me, though, like for the beginning for a little bit
because I was nervous and didn’t want to be by myself. (Kiku, age 17, Youth
Experiences in Science)

Adolescents mentioned intentional activities designed to promote group

cohesion as effective in helping them become more comfortable with each
other and their role as teachers. They spoke positively of their interactions
within their teams. There was a sense of respect as evidenced in their plan-
ning and working together, that they felt listened to, and that their ideas were
valued.

Character
Teenagers (17 of 32) described aspects of developing character: compromise,
growth in responsibility, courageous behavior, and a growing commitment to
the program. Although these aspects are not in exact alignment with the
Worker et al. 43

theoretical definition for Character, we believed they fit, for example, respect
for norms (compromise), correct behaviors and integrity (responsibility and
commitment to program), and integrity (evidenced by courage). Telma
described compromise as an integral component of working with peers.

Well, after a while of arguing, you just have to be like, okay. We’ll let the other
people know what’s best for the little kids because it’s not always about us; it’s
about what they want to do and what’s fun for them, too. (Telma, age 15,
Science Program)

Participants (13 of 32) also reflected on a sense of responsibility to both the

children and their peers. Teenagers described their feelings of responsibility
as a commitment to the program, such as fulfilling expectations, regular
attendance, and preparing for lessons in advance. They also discussed respon-
sibility around feeling relied-upon by adults and peers for critical functions.

I felt very honored because at the beginning our advisor gave me the master
folder and so. . . . although all of the girls in [the program], we did the activities
together, but I felt honored because she gave me the folder as me being the
responsible one. And so I found to be a very big responsibility. (Teresa, age 16,
Science Program)

Teenagers demonstrated responsibility when talking about feeling such as

that the children were depending on them, and thus that they needed to priori-
tize their participation in the program. Adolescents (22 of 32) communicated
another aspect of character development, that is, displaying courageous
behavior to overcome perceived limitations.

I honestly think that I have gained more leadership skills. Definitely. I have
gained also more responsibility, more capacity for myself, and more
determination . . . Before I knew what I was capable of, but I know that I can
go beyond. Beyond my limitations, beyond what I dream of. (Teresa, age 16,
Science Program)

Teresa articulated a realization of moving beyond her perceived limitations.

Other teens shared this perspective, that they were shy and had to “put myself
out there” in front of children, peers, and adults. Although these teenagers
described being nervous at the beginning of the project, they tell how the
teacher role helped them overcome this perceived limitation.

I would definitely consider myself as an introvert, for sure, but I think that
being in front of a group and having to present a lesson several times over the
44 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

course of the weekend. . . . I think it’s definitely helped me be less shy and
every year you meet new people with the program and I think you have to put
the shyness aside. (Ashlyn, age 17, Environmental Education Camp)

Adolescents like Ashlyn, who considered themselves as “shy” or “an intro-

vert,” described their experience being more social and talked about over-
coming this self-perceived limitation. While sorted into competence as social
competence, it was also interconnected to character development, particu-
larly when it manifested as what we understood as courageous behavior.

Caring
Teenagers (12 of 32) reported both empathy and compassion through their
experience working with younger youth. Many teenagers could identify
when children were in need.

One time this kid’s grandma had passed away and so I had to be there for him.
I was like, “You know what? I’m here for you. If you want to cry.” (Adelia, age
18, Science Program)

Other transcripts reflected a growing sense of caring toward other children,

peers, and adults. Although a strong theme was caring about children, this
was also perceived as a detractor for other teenagers’ involvement. For exam-
ple, when asked why they thought more teenagers were not involved, a teen-
ager responded,

Cause it involves little kids. . . . . like the kids get these stereotypes saying
they’re bratty, they’re this, they’re that. But honestly if you really get to know
a kid, they’re really fun. They can be just like your best friend too and you can
have the greatest fun with them. (Boitumelo, age 14, Youth Experiences in
Science)

Overall, the teenagers’ descriptions provided evidence of their positive atti-

tudes and empathy toward others. This relationship between caring and con-
nection demonstrated a strong link between growing connections and a sense
of empathy.

Contribution
Teenagers (30 of 32) expressed having an impact in the program and a sense
of meaningfulness—and frequently described this as unexpected and novel
Worker et al. 45

compared with their participation in other out-of-school time programs.

When initially joining the teenagers-as-teachers program, they perceived the
work as a physical or academic task, not an emotional one. Through their
experience in teaching, they began to recognize that a major element was
supporting the development of children. Teenagers enjoyed helping children
have fun, learn, and grow. When we asked what it was like to work with chil-
dren, Leticia said,

So you feel kind of like you’re maturing during the process and you help
[children] a lot and make them learn. . . . We help them a lot and it feels really
nice to help them. (Leticia, age 12, Nature Club)

Teenagers recognized that while ostensibly serving as teachers of younger

children they themselves were learning and growing from the experience.

I went there with the intention of volunteering, of helping others. But I didn’t
think that that was going to help me. I’m getting so much in return rather than
giving. And it’s something that I wasn’t expecting. (Teresa, age 16, Science
Program)

Like Teresa, others found this a surprising discovery. By providing an oppor-

tunity to engage with peers and adults, make decisions, and help others, teen-
agers began to sense that their contributions were important and valued.
Almost all participants (30 of 32) described experiencing a sense of meaning-
fulness that came from serving in an authentic role. Adolescents (22 of 32)
relayed their sense of growing agency, described often as feeling “like I had
a voice” (Ashlyn, age 17), being able to “come with some of our own [activi-
ties]” (Adelia, age 18), “when we choose a lesson and we teach it” (Jen, age
16), or when “we plan ideas that we should do [with children]” (Leticia, age
12). Teenagers indicated that the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful
way provided space to practice and grow.

I got to [the program] because I wanted to help them out. . . . I feel that I have
that connection to help somebody. It’s just not the connection, it’s the
willingness that I want to help somebody accomplish something. I want to see
them succeed. (Teresa, age 17, Science Program)

Overall, interviews demonstrated that teenagers believed they could contrib-

ute and acted on that belief by serving in teaching roles. Teenagers felt a
sense of responsibility as the teacher, the person(s) primarily responsible for
the program’s outcomes, and perceived they were making authentic contribu-
tions to the program and to the children they served.
46 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

Discussion
The objective of this research was to explore adolescents’ experiences in
teenagers-as-teachers program to better understand youth development out-
comes when placing adolescents in the role of a teacher for younger children.
Adolescents reported positive experiences and their own growth in compe-
tence, confidence, connection, caring, character, and contribution. These
findings provided evidence that the teenagers-as-teachers program model
was a method for structuring authentic service that adolescents found mean-
ingful. Here we discuss implications for teenagers-as-teachers programs and
then revisit PYD theory.

Implications for Teenagers-as-Teachers Programs

Our study provided evidence for the constructs proposed by Murdock et al.
(2003) for addressing adolescent development through teenagers-as-teachers
programs: development of abstract thinking, support for identity formation,
development of behavioral and emotional autonomy, preparation for achieve-
ment-oriented environments, and development of skills for transition to
adulthood. Although the analysis did not identify these exact constructs spe-
cifically, the emergent codes connected to and reinforced this framework.
Particularly, in serving as a teacher, teenagers described aspects of planning
and self-reflection, how trying the teacher role required new ways of thinking
and being; addressing issues in-the-moment while working with children,
which afforded teens a degree of independence; serving in a role with natural
scaffolding that afforded teenagers low-entry barriers and opportunities to
feel moments of achievement; and an environment to build public speaking,
teamwork, and other important life skills. Another strand of teenagers-as-
teachers research focuses on academic achievement and reduction in alcohol
and drug abuse (e.g., Dean & Murdock, 1992; Hedin, 1987). Although we did
not specifically inquire about these outcomes, it is noteworthy that they did
not emerge through open-ended interview questions (e.g., “How have you
changed through participating in this program?” or “How are you different
now because of this program?”). Although school performance and reducing
risky behavior may be important outcomes, the youth we interviewed did not
mention these as outcomes they attributed to the program.
Previous research for cross-age mentoring, a program model sharing simi-
lar characteristics yet quite distinct, suggested outcomes vary depending on
program practices (e.g., supervision, training) and whether programs pursue
promoting PYD or a more focused goal such as education or employment
(DuBois et al., 2002). It is highly likely that adolescent outcomes in
Worker et al. 47

teenagers-as-teachers programs would vary similarly; however, there is a

lack of research on the effect of program practices for teenagers-as-teachers
programs. Our work revealed tremendous youth development benefit for
teens participating; however, we did not interrogate program practices to the
degree necessary to identify relationships. Our study examined five teenag-
ers-as-teachers programs within one organizational context and there was
minimal variation (although some with respect to curriculum, training, and
adult support). Future research would help provide an understanding of what
teenagers-as-teachers program practices influence youth outcomes, under
what conditions, and for whom.
Relationships were a vital factor as both a program emphasis and out-
come. Similarly, relationships are a key element in cross-age mentoring and
seen as a best practice in supporting high-quality interactions (DuBois et al.,
2002; Karcher, 2005). We found that relationships were a strong component
of program enjoyment, a contributor to success, and took place on three lev-
els: with adults, with teen peers, and with the children. This is one area of
differentiation between teenagers-as-teachers and cross-age mentoring: in the
former, teenagers are able to work with and develop connections to adults,
with adolescent peers, and groups of children, whereas in the latter, teenagers
acting as mentors develop relationships with just one (or a few) children.
Being able to connect with multiple people provides a valuable developmen-
tal experience, where adolescents have to learn to navigate multiple person-
alities, manage conflicting ideas, engage in compromise, and display and
show compassion and empathy. This reinforces and builds not only team-
work competencies and connection but also aspects of character and caring.
Youth development programs may struggle to find ways to incorporate
young people into decision making; however, our findings demonstrate that
teenagers-as-teachers programs provide a role seen as relevant, authentic,
and meaningful to adolescents. Engaging youth in meaningful leadership
roles produces stronger programs and affords opportunities for growth in
adolescents as well as the younger participants. Our work also demonstrated
that benefits are realized through sustained, ongoing programs that meet reg-
ularly (every week). Although training was important, teenagers reported
gaining competence and confidence serving in the role itself. Organizations
wanting to promote youth development for adolescents will need to provide
support and a space for them to practice, self-reflect, and learn through sus-
tained engagement.
Finally, younger participants (aged 11 and 12 years; four in total in our
study) may have been too close in age to the children to realize the benefits
reported by older adolescents. These younger teenagers generally had shorter
interviews and provided less evidence, seen in their interview transcripts, for
48 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

growth in the six Cs. This developmental difference between early adoles-
cents and the mid- to late-adolescents may mean younger teenagers did not
have the developmental competences to self-reflect or articulate their experi-
ences. On the contrary, it might indicate that teenagers-as-teachers programs
provide greater developmental benefits to 13- to 19-year-old adolescents.

Revisiting PYD Theory

The prevailing PYD literature employs a priori constructs and there has not
been much qualitative empirical work to understand experiences from young
people’s point of view. We did not design our study initially around a theo-
retical framework (e.g., the Cs), but rather identified codes that emerged as
young people spoke of their experiences, and then observed that groupings
reflected the Cs (e.g., R. M. Lerner, 2007; J. V. Lerner et al., 2009). In addi-
tion, subset of codes tended to converge, overlap, and enhance each other. For
example, developing competence in public speaking was associated with
feelings of improved confidence. We found that teenagers reported strong
evidence for development of the Cs grounded in the context of our study. The
emergent codes from this study contrasted with previous empirical efforts to
operationalize and assess each C (e.g., Bowers et al., 2010). We see this con-
textual influence in mapping the codes onto the Cs. Although we were able to
fit each of our emergent codes into a specific C construct because the high-
level definition is broad, not every emergent code mapped onto the operation-
alized constructs used in PYD quantitative surveys (e.g., the Short Measure
of PYD; Geldhof et al., 2013). Conversely, the operationalized quantitative
constructs assessed additional attributes and outcomes we did not find (or
necessarily look for) in our qualitative data. In general, our emergent codes,
contextualized to the program and setting, identified specific learning and
growth reflected from teenagers-as-teachers program activities.
Competence is the ability to act effectively in social, academic, cognitive,
health, and vocational components (R. M. Lerner, 2007). The Short Measure
of PYD (Geldhof et al., 2013) assesses scholastic competence, physical
competence, academic grades, and social acceptance. Within the teenagers-
as-teachers context, we found evidence primarily for what was defined as
vocational competence in the forms of leadership, teaching, and planning
skills; some evidence for social competence (e.g., conflict resolution, socia-
bility); and cognitive competence (e.g., foresight, self-regulation, self-
awareness). We found evidence of confidence represented as young people
described self-efficacy and self-esteem growing over time as they continued
in their teaching role. However, we did not identify strong evidence for con-
fidence around self-worth or physical appearance as included in the Short
Worker et al. 49

Measure of PYD (Geldhof et al., 2013). Teenagers expressed developing

strong connections between people by being role models to younger chil-
dren and building relationships with peers and adults. Although we found
evidence of connection to peers, we did not find direct evidence for improved
connections to family, neighborhood, or school, three constructs assessed by
the Short Measure of PYD (Geldhof et al., 2013). Character is respect for
norms, sense of right and wrong, integrity, and understanding of standards
for correct behavior (R. M. Lerner, 2007). Identifying specific examples of
character in the interview transcripts were more challenging than for the
other Cs. Our emergent codes for character differed from the theoretical
definition and focused on instances where teenagers described fulfilling
responsibilities and overcoming perceived limitations. However, we believe
that our emergent codes still fit, because by describing their growing sense
of responsibility and commitment, teenagers were “respecting the balance
between serving oneself and acting selflessly for the good of other individu-
als” (R. M. Lerner, 2007, p. 139). Adolescents described caring, a sense of
sympathy and empathy, as compassion for and understanding the feelings of
the children they were teaching. The Short Measure of PYD assesses these
attributes. Finally, contribution was evident within the nature of the program
(i.e., teenagers were serving in a role that afforded contribution) and teenag-
ers spoke about their sense of purpose, feelings of meaningfulness, and
developing a sense of agency.
These findings, and the notion for the importance of contextualized pro-
gram outcomes, are important because the Five Cs of PYD model posits that
youth need opportunities to grow and strengthen each of the Cs to be on a
path of thriving, and that the emergence of the Cs leads to contribution. In our
discussion here, we did not identify every operationalized construct from the
Short Measure of PYD; however, we found evidence for each C fitting with
its broad definition. The concern is that if the assessment methodology is not
sensitive or contextualized enough to measure attributes affected by the pro-
gram, the program may indeed be contributing to PYD (in ways important to
the people and community) but policy makers, funders, and others responsi-
ble for decision making may be led to believe that the program has little or no
positive impact. Providing strong evidence for what works, and for whom, in
youth development programs will require methodological pluralism.
The Five Cs of the PYD model posits that contribution emerges after the
other Five Cs are present (R. M. Lerner, 2004, 2007). However, in this study,
interviews with teenagers suggested that contribution was a precursor, not a
product of the other Cs. The act of contributing, as teenagers did in a volun-
teer teacher role, led to the development of the other Cs. The teenagers-as-
teachers program model may provide adolescents not only extended learning
50 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

opportunities for individual growth, but also an avenue for contribution in

meaningful and valuable ways alongside adults. The model creates spaces for
novel and challenging experiences that are not only developmentally appro-
priate, but also an enhancement to individual and community growth. Thus,
contribution may not be an outcome, not emerging when the other Cs are
present, but part of a reciprocal process. This may be a circular relationship,
and contribution may be a critical formative element, as well as an outcome
of youth development programs. The reciprocal relationship between con-
tributing and the development of competence, confidence, connection, car-
ing, and character is evident in the teenagers we interviewed. Other researchers
have found similar patterns (e.g., Wilson et al., 2017), so we suggest that the
relationship between the five Cs and Contribution is an important process to
study in the future.

Limitations
There are several limitations to note in this study. Methodologically, inter-
view prompts may have suffered from affective momentum, that is, led par-
ticipants to respond in a positive manner; that is, we generally asked positive
questions, such as, “Provide an example of a time you felt you had a voice in
program planning” instead of critical questions, like “Provide an example of
a time you felt left out in program planning.” We conducted both individual
and paired interviews, and thus, loquacious youth may have unduly influ-
enced their perspectives in the data. In addition, we interviewed only half of
the participating teens, leaving many voices unheard, which may have con-
tributed to selection bias in our analysis. Theoretically, we mixed epistemolo-
gies, combining both inductive (within a constructivist paradigm) and
deductive (within a positivistic/realist paradigm) reasoning; however, we
strived to be pragmatic, and believed fitting emergent codes into preexisting
theory adds to the research base. We do note that our findings may have
looked different if we developed our own themes.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Rebecca Rodriguez, Linda Corrales, and Sue Manglallan for their
support conducting this research. We thank Kendra Lewis, Heather Worker, the edi-
tor, and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of
this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Worker et al. 51

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Children,
Youth, and Families At-Risk (Grant Numbers 2009-41520-0540 and 2011-41520-
30430) from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.

ORCID iD
Marianne Bird https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9907-586X

References
Bassett, R., Beagan, B. L., Ristovski-Slijepcevic, S., & Chapman, G. E. (2008).
Tough teens: The methodological challenges of interviewing teenag-
ers as research participants. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 119-131.
doi:10.1177/0743558407310733
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth
development: Theory, research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 894-940). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0116
Bird, M., & Subramaniam, A. (2011). Teens as teachers enhance environmental edu-
cation and personal skills through service learning. In A. Subramaniam, K. Heck,
R. Carlos, & S. Junge (Eds.), Advances in youth development: Research and eval-
uation from the University of California cooperative extension 2001-2010 (pp.
32-41). Davis, CA: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010).
The Five Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of
confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39, 720-735.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cornish, F., Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2013). Collaborative analysis of qualitative
data. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 79-
93). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446282243
Dean, L., & Murdock, S. W. (1992). The effect of voluntary service on adolescent
attitudes toward learning. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 10, 5-10.
Dedoose. (2016). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting quali-
tative and mixed method research data (Version 6.1.18). Los Angeles, CA:
SocioCultural Research Consultants. Available from www.dedoose.com
Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R. S., & Allen, V. L. (1976). Research on children
tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46, 355-
385. doi:10.3102/00346543046003355
52 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness
of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 30, 157-198.
Emil, C., Dworkin, J., & Skelly, C. (2007). Youth teaching youth: Evaluation of the
alcohol/tobacco decisions cross-age teaching program. The Forum for Family
and Consumer Issues, 12(2). Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ffci/publi-
cations/2007/v12-n2-2007-summer-fall/emil.php
Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Napolitano, C. M., Schmid,
K. L., . . . Lerner, R. M. (2013). Creation of short and very short measures of the
five Cs of positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24,
163-176. doi:10.1111/jora.12039
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hammond-Diedrich, K. C., & Walsh, D. (2006). Empowering youth through a
responsibility-based cross-age teacher program: An investigation into impact and
possibilities. The Physical Educator, 63, 134-142.
Heck, K. E., & Subramaniam, A. (2009). Youth development frameworks [Monograph].
Davis, CA: 4-H Center for Youth Development, University of California.
Hedin, D. (1987). Students as teachers: A tool for improving school climate and pro-
ductivity. Social Policy, 17(3), 42-47.
Hershberg, R. M., DeSouza, L. M., Warren, A. E. A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M.
(2014). Illuminating trajectories of adolescent thriving and contribution through
the words of youth: Qualitative findings from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth
Development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 950-970. doi:10.1007/
s10964-014-0102-2
Jorgensen, E. L. (2000). Project excel: Cross-age science teaching as a commu-
nity intervention. In M. T. Braverman, R. M. Carlos, & S. M. Stanley (Eds.),
Advances in youth development programming: Reviews and case studies from
the University of California (pp. 107-125). Oakland, CA: Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources.
Karcher, M. J. (2005). Cross-age peer mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher
(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 266-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Karcher, M. J., & Nakkula, M. J. (2010). Play, talk, learn: Promising practices in
youth mentoring: New directions for youth development 126. San Francisco, CA:
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Positive youth develop-
ment. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology
(3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 524-558). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among America’s
youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781452233581
Lerner, R. M. (2007). The good teen: Rescuing adolescence from the myths of the
storm and stress years. New York, NY: Random House.
Lerner, R. M., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdottir, S., & DeSouza, L. (2012).
Promoting positive youth development in the face of contextual changes and
Worker et al. 53

c­ hallenges: The roles of individual strengths and ecological assets. New Direction
for Youth Development, 2012, 119-128. doi:10.1002/yd.20034
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller,
M. K., . . . Napolitano, C. M. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes,
programs, and problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 41-64.
doi:10.5195/JYD.2011.174
Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Bowers, E. P. (2010).
Special issue introduction: The meaning and measurement of thriving: A view of
the issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 707-719. doi:10.1007/s10964-
010-9531-8
Murdock, S. W., Lee, F. C. H., & Paterson, C. A. (2003). The role of cross-age teach-
ing in supporting adolescent development [Monograph]. Davis, CA: 4-H Center
for Youth Development.
National Commission on Resources for Youth. (1974). Youth as teachers. In New
roles for youth in the school and the community (pp. 40-72). New York, NY:
Citation Press.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs
to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
doi:10.17226/10022
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ponzio, R. C., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Adolescents as effective instructions of child
science. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 36-46.
Ripberger, C., Devitt, A., & Gore, S. (2009). Training teenagers as food and fitness
ambassadors for out-of-school programs. Journal of Extension, 47(5), Article
5IAW5.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schine, J., & Campbell, P. (1989). Young teens help young children for the benefit of
both. Young Children, 44(3), 65-69.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Shanahan, A. (2015). The relationship between cross-age teaching and social &
emotional learning (Youth development issue brief). University of Minnesota
Extension. Retrieved from http://www.extension.umn.edu/youth/research/sel/
docs/issue-brief-relationship-between-cross-age-teaching-and-sel.pdf
Synder, F. J., & Flay, B. R. (2012). Positive youth development. In P. M. Brown,
M. W. Corrigan, & A. Higgins-D’Alessandro (Eds.), The handbook of prosocial
education (pp. 415-443). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wilson, Y.-A., Seitz, S., Broomfield-Massey, K., Whitehead, L., Mangia, J.,
Pridgeon, K. M., & Kuperminc, G. (2017). “It’s more like we want to come to
this”: Program engagement in a sexual health youth leadership council. Journal
of Youth Development, 12(3), 37-49. doi:10.5195/jyd.2017.508
54 Journal of Adolescent Research 34(1)

Author Biographies
Steven M. Worker, PhD, received his PhD in the learning sciences from the
University of California, Davis. He is the 4-H youth development advisor serving
Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties, California. His research focuses on learning in
out-of-school time, specifically educator practices promoting youth development and
informal science learning.
Anne M. Iaccopucci is the California 4-H healthy living coordinator responsible for
statewide healthy living program planning, curriculum development, and evaluation.
Her academic foci are youth development, health, and well-being.
Marianne Bird is the 4-H youth development advisor serving Sacramento County,
California. Her focus involves expanding learning opportunities for diverse youth in
science and environmental education. She conducts applied research in residential
camp contexts and serves on the American Camp Association’s Committee for the
Advancement of Research and Evaluation.
Marcel Horowitz is the healthy youth, families, and communities advisor serving
Yolo County, California. Her focus includes youth and community-focused experien-
tial education and interventions in the areas of health and wellness.