fostering achievement and self-efficacy among newcomer

of 65 /65
William M. Firmender Fostering Achievement and Self-efficacy Among Newcomer Immigrant Youth: A Program Evaluation of Soccer Without Borders

Author: others

Post on 17-Mar-2022

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

WMF Diss Defense Presentation 04 24 2017W i l l i a m M . F i r m e n d e r
Fostering Achievement and Self-efficacy Among Newcomer Immigrant Youth:
A Program Evaluation of Soccer Without Borders
PURPOSE OF STUDY
• This study is an initial program evaluation of Soccer Without Borders using community-based participatory research principles
• Help illustrate if SWB was associated with outcomes important to newcomer immigrant youth
• Provide suggestions for how SWB could improve their data collection process to better assess their outcomes
NEWCOMER IMMIGRANT YOUTH
• Immigrant is an umbrella term including refugee, asylees, and unaccompanied minors • Between 14 and 18 • Arrived their new country within the last 5 years • At risk for physical and psychological health
problems • Self-efficacy and academic abilities may be
underdeveloped
IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS
• Percentage of immigrant youth in the United States has been steadily increasing over the past 50 years • In 2013 • 70,000 refugees admitted • Over 1/3 children
• 25,000 asylees admitted • 1/6 children
Fazel & Stein, 2002; Passel, 2011; Congressional Research Service, 2014 4
IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS
friends • Interrupted education
peer group
disorder • Anxiety disorders • Depression • Conduct Disorder
• Academic difficulties • Identity development
SELF-EFFICACY
• Reaching desired goals through abilities • Having success raises self-efficacy • Failing lowers self-efficacy
• Formed by actual experiences • Self-efficacy gained or lost by other methods can be
counteracted or confirmed by actual experience
Catalano et al., 2004; Bandura, 1989; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Sherer et al., 1982; Oettingen, 1995 7
SELF-EFFICACY DEVELOPMENT
• Stems from a youth’s sense of identity • Newcomer immigrant youth may be delayed
• Attachment with primary caregiver creates a strong sense of identity in young children • Role models especially important for adolescents • Youth begin to measure their abilities by comparing
themselves to others starting at age 7 • Conflicting research regarding changes in self-
efficacy with age • Some studies show it declines, other show it increases
Erikson, 1980; Roffman, Suárez-Orozco, & Rhodes, 2003; Harter, 1983; Schuck & Meece, 2006; Bandura, 2006; Biskup & Pfister, 1999 8
SOCIAL SELF-EFFICACY
• Reaching desired social goals through abilities • Significantly related to first semester grades in
college students • Other expectancy beliefs were not
• May help improve academic self-efficacy
Anderson & Betz, 2001; Ferrari & Parker, 1992 9
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-EFFICACY
construct • More general types of self-efficacy may be applicable to
minority populations regardless of ethnicity or culture
• Little research on social self-efficacy in diverse populations
Schunk & Meece, 2006; Meece & Scantlebury, 2006; Scholz et al., 2002 10
SELF-EFFICACY IN NEWCOMER IMMIGRANT YOUTH
• Stressful life transitions, including school transitions, can lead to decreases in self-efficacy in youth • Immigrant youth are more vulnerable to transitions due to • The unique stressors they face before, during, and after the
transition • The degree of their transition
• The difficulties of transitioning may require specific interventions designed to help immigrant youth regain some of the self-efficacy they have lost
Jerusalem & Mittag, 1995; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Schunk & Meece, 2006; Suárez-Orozco, Pimentel, & Martin, 2009 11
ACADEMICS AND NEWCOMER IMMIGRANT YOUTH
Suárez-Orozco et al., 2010 12
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
• Social relationships can be developed through extracurricular activities • Immigrant youth may not have access to activities
• Many different activities were favorably related to social and academic outcomes • May help improve their self-efficacy and academic
outcomes
• The amount of participation is also associated with positive academic outcomes
Feldman Farb & Matjasko, 2012; Stearns & Glennie, 2010 13
SPORTS
• Sports produces the most positive outcomes • May be because regular physical activity can help
prevent and reduce mental and physical health problems
Marsh, 1992; Broh, 2002; US Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2008 14
SOCCER
• Soccer is seen as the ideal sport to engage immigrant youth • Is popular among immigrant youth • Does not require a set court, requires little equipment, and
allows for large variation in team size • Is played in over 200 countries worldwide
• Playing soccer enables them to idolize and attempt to imitate the soccer stars they love • Consistent with self-identity development stage youth go
through where they begin to look up to and strive to be like famous athletes and celebrities.
Cushman, 2014; Yohani, 2010 15
SOCCER WITHOUT BORDERS
• A sports-based extracurricular activity • Seeks to help newcomer immigrant youth become better
integrated into their new communities by “harnessing the power of soccer as a universal language”
• Focus on social skills, emotional development, and leadership skills more than athletic success. • Targets at-risk and hard to reach social group
Cushman, 2014 17
SOCCER WITHOUT BORDERS
• SWB believes their program benefits immigrant youth • Do not have the means to evaluate themselves to
determine if their beliefs are accurate
• Curriculum based on principles of Positive Youth Development (PYD) • Theory that tries to integrate • Human development • Community organization and development • Social and community change
18
• Empirical evidence of program benefits to newcomer immigrant youth • Demonstrate SWB improves • Academic performance • Relationship with peers
• Improve data collection process to better assess outcomes
19
CBPR
Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005 20
PROGRAM EVALUATION
• Structured procedure that gathers information about programs to help stakeholders answer questions about the effectiveness of their programs • Proposed study is: • Impact evaluation • Answer questions about a programs intended effects
• Who it helped • Why it may have helped
• Process evaluation • Helps improve the process of data collection
McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006; Harrell et al., 1996 21
CDC GUIDELINES
HYPOTHESIS 1
• A majority of participants will report that being involved in SWB increased their social self-efficacy
23
24
• Greater participation in Soccer Without Borders will predict higher academic achievement
25
HYPOTHESIS 4
• Students that participate in Soccer Without Borders will have higher academic achievement than the school as a whole
26
METHODS
SAMPLE AND SETTINGS
• Archival data • Immigrant adolescents • Males • Ages 13-19 • Enrolled in high school
• N = 102 • Unique setting • International High School
28
PROCEDURE
• Research questions were created collaboratively based on • What each party wanted • What data was available • Were informed by research literature
• Initial program evaluation • With suggestions regarding a more in-depth secondary
evaluation
PROCEDURE
• Impact model of program evaluation • Results used to illustrate if SWB was associated with
outcomes important to newcomer immigrant youth • Social self-efficacy • Academic achievement • School attendance
• Process model of program evaluation • Results used to provide suggestions for how SWB could
improve their data collection process to better assess their outcomes
MEASURES
• Demographics
Not Really
Kind of
…I have made new friends
…I am more comfortable expressing myself
…I am better at listening to other people
…I have the chance to be a leader
32
GRADE POINT AVERAGE
• SWB Participants • 2014 Fall • 2015 Spring • 2014-15 Cumulative • 2015 Fall • 2016 Spring • 2015-16 Cumulative
• School-wide average: • 2014-15 Cumulative • 2015-16 Cumulative
33
DATA ANALYSIS: HYPOTHESIS 1
• A majority of participants will report that being involved in SWB increased their social self-efficacy
• Looks at the percentage of students who endorsed that participation in Soccer Without Borders increased their social self-efficacy • Measured by answering ‘yes’ or ‘kind of’ to the five
questions that comprise the social self-efficacy measure on the EOY Questionnaire
34
• Paired-samples t-test • Change in mean scores of continuous variable (Academic
achievement) across 2 time points • 2014 Fall GPA à 2015 Spring GPA • 2015 Fall GPA à 2016 Spring GPA
35
• Greater participation in Soccer Without Borders will predict higher academic achievement
• Linear regression • Continuous IV (Amount of participation) • Continuous DV (Academic achievement)
36
DATA ANALYSIS: HYPOTHESIS 4
• Students who participate in Soccer Without Borders will have higher academic achievement than the school as a whole
• One-sample t-test • Mean GPA of sample (SWB) • Mean GPA of population (School as a whole)
37
RESULTS
DEMOGRAPHICS
(n=66) % of
participants # of participants
(n=90) % of
participants Country of Origin Afghanistan
Chin State Columbia El Salvador Eritrea Ethiopia Guatemala Honduras Karen State Mexico Mongolia Nepal Rwanda Somalia Yemen Brazil Syria India
5 1 1
10 5 1 2 1 2 6 0 0 0
7.6 1.5 1.5
24.2 6.1 1.5
15.2 7.6 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 2 2
23 7 1
10 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1
4.4 2.2 2.2
25.6 7.8 1.1
11.1 5.6 2.2 3.0 1.1 1.1 5.6 1.1 1.1 1.1
DEMOGRAPHICS
(n=66) % of
participants # of participants
(n=90) % of
participants Age 13
1 3 9
1 5
1.1 5.6
Cumulative GPA 0-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00
1 8
7 4
16.7 33.3 37.8
Participation 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 100+
0 11 4 9 4 7 9 7 7 5 3
0.0 16.7 6.0
3 8
3.3 8.9
14.4 8.9
10.0 5.6
RESULTS – HYPOTHESIS 1
• Question 2 • 95.4% endorsed
• Question 3 • 98.5% endorsed
• Question 4 • 96.9% endorsed
• Question 5 • 98.4% endorsed
• Question 2 • 98.5% endorsed
• Question 3 • 95.6% endorsed
• Question 4 • 100% endorsed
• Question 5 • 98.5% endorsed
• Hypothesis 1: Participants would predominately endorse that SWB increased their social self-efficacy
• Null hypothesis rejected
• For each of the five questions, more than 95 percent of respondents endorsed participating in SWB increased their social self-efficacy
RESULTS – HYPOTHESIS 2
• Hypothesis 2: Participating in SWB will increase students’ academic achievement
• Null hypothesis could not be rejected • No significant change was found in GPA between Fall and
Spring GPA for either school year
RESULTS – HYPOTHESIS 3
• Hypothesis 3: The amount of participation in SWB will predict academic achievement
• Null hypothesis could not be rejected
• The amount of participation was not shown to predict academic achievement for either school year
RESULTS – HYPOTHESIS 4
• Hypothesis 4: SWB participants will have higher academic achievement than the school as a whole
• Null hypothesis rejected
• 2014-15 • SWB participants(M = 3.33) GPA was significantly higher
than the school-wide (M = 3.02) GPA (t[65] = 4.12, p = .000) • 2015-16 • SWB participants(M = 3.25) GPA was significantly higher
than the school-wide (M = 3.11) GPA (t[90] = 2.01, p = .048)
ANCILLARY ANALYSES
• Ancillary analyses were conducted to determine • At what time points the GPAs of SWB participants was
higher than the school average • One sample t-test
• If participating students had fewer absences than the school as a whole • One sample t-test
• If the five-item subset chosen to represent social self- efficacy measured the same construct • Exploratory factor analysis
ANCILLARY ANALYSES - GPA
• Fall 2014 (M = 3.34) GPA and Spring 2015 (M = 3.28) GPA of SWB participants was higher than 2014/2015 school-wide GPA (M = 3.02); (t[65] = 4.02, p = .000; t[65] = 3.40, p = .001)
• Fall 2015 (M = 3.28) GPA of SWB participants was higher than 2015/2016 school-wide (M = 3.11) GPA (t[90] = 2.19, p = .031) • Spring 2016 GPA was not significantly different than the
school-wide GPA
• 2014-15 • Average absences (M = 4.35) of SWB participants was
significantly lower than school-wide (M = 9.90) average absences (t[65] = -10.36, p = .000)
• 2015-16 • Average absences (M = 5.68) of SWB participants was
significantly lower than school-wide (M = 7.56) average absences (t[90] = -3.11, p = .003)
ANCILLARY ANALYSIS – FACTOR ANALYSIS
• 2014-15 • A two-factor solution was found • “Because of SWB, I am better at working with other kids” was its
own factor • The other four items were a separate factor
• a = .71
• 2015-16 • A one-factor solution was found • All items matching onto a single construct
• a = .66
Question 2014/2015 2015/2016 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1
Because of coming to Soccer Without Borders I am better at working with other kids
.983 .648
Because of coming to Soccer Without Borders I have made new friends
.912 .647
Because of coming to Soccer Without Borders I am more comfortable expressing myself
.577 .570
Because of coming to Soccer Without Borders I am better at listening to other people
.543 .484
Because of coming to Soccer Without Borders I have the chance be a leader
.299 .299
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
• SWB likely has a positive influence on the social self- efficacy of newcomer immigrant youth
• SWB participation may not be strongly related to changes in academic performance • May be due to the differences in comparing GPA across
two different semesters • May have been a ceiling on participants’ GPAs • Social self-efficacy is generally stable over time by the time
a person reaches college
Tsai et al., 2016
• SWB participation was not significantly related to academic achievement • This finding is counter to much of the previous research,
though the unique population may help explain this • It is consistent with one study that investigated number of
sporting events attended per week
DISCUSSION
• For both school years, the average GPA of SWB participants was significantly higher than the school- wide student body. • Suggests there may be some quality associated with SWB
participation that leads to higher academic achievement • Alternative explanation: extracurricular activities (such as
SWB) initially attract high achieving students • “Better academic adjustment evinced by students who
participate in school-based extracurricular activities are not the spurious result of the selection of better adjusted students into extracurricular activities”
• Instead, extracurricular participation aligns the students’ values to the schools’ values
DISCUSSION
• SWB participants had significantly fewer absences than the school as a whole
• Consistent with previous research showing: • Male athletes have lower rates of misconduct than non-
athlete males • Skipping school or cutting classes
• Sports participation may decrease the likelihood that disadvantaged males will drop out of high school
Miller et al., 2005; Eitle, 2005 55
LIMITATIONS
• Lack of empirically validated outcome measure or true control group • Difficult to make concrete claims about the effectiveness of
the program • Reliability coefficients are above or near the acceptable
threshold of .70
LIMITATIONS
• Use of self-report measure creates potential confounds • Highly subjective and is unable to be verified • Exacerbated by limited English proficiency of sample
• At least one portion of the EOY Questionnaire overlaps with nationally normed social self-efficacy and PYD measures
Nunnally, 1978; Sherer et al., 1982; Connolly, 1989; Arnold, Nott, & Meinhold, 2012; Lerner et al., 2005 57
LIMITATIONS
• Small and specific sample • Findings are likely not generalizable to the general
population, nor to the entire SWB program • Tells us a lot about immigrant male population • Diversity of the participants in terms of country of origin does
increase the generalizability to immigrant populations
LIMITATIONS
• Use of archival data • Little opportunity to explore other areas of research interest
that SWB may not have included in their past outcome measurements
• Archival data has its perks • Not influenced by presence of researchers • Minimizes organizational strain
Berg, 2004; Wong, 2012 59
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
• Focus on how school engagement/bonding may affect the relationship between extracurricular activity participation and academic achievement
• Use the qualitative section at the end of the EOY Questionnaire or conduct interviews with participants to assess what participants gain from the program in their own words
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
• Explore themes among the girls and boys SWB teams at multiple SWB sites
• Perform a multi-year study • Assess the utility of any new measures SWB chooses to add
to their data collection procedure • Track a group of participants to measure graduation rate
PROGRAM FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS
• Add a pre-test that already has standardized norms for adolescents and use the same measure as a post-test
• Add data input from other sources such as teachers, parents/guardians, or SWB staff
• Add a measure that assesses Positive Youth Development
Ben,
Thank you so much for all your help, support, and patience throughout this process. Watching you work and interact with students always brought and smile to my face and drove home how much you care about all aspects of their development.
I look forward to working with you more in the future,
Sincerely,
Wil
SELECTED REFERENCES • Anderson, S. L., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and relation to career
development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 98-117. • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.Bandura, A. (1977).
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. • Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs in adolescents (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. • Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35(3), 125-139 • Biskup, C., & Pfister, G. (1999). I would like to be like him/her: Are athletes role models for boys and girls? European Physical
Education Review, 5(3), 199-218. • Broh, B. A. (2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why? Sociology of
Education, 75(1), 69-91. • Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United
States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591, 98-124. doi:10.1177/0002716203260102
• Congressional Research Service. (2014). Unaccompanied children from Central America: Foreign policy considerations. (CRS Report R43702). Meyer, P. J., Taft-Morales, M., Seelke, C. R., & Margesson, R.
• Cushman, K. (2014). Learning by heart: Five American high schools where social and emotional learning are core. California: Oakland International High School, Soccer Without Borders.
• Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 98-118.
• Erikson E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. • Fazel, M., Stein, A. (2002). The mental health of refugee children. Archive of Disease in Children, 87, 366-370.
doi:10.1136/adc.87.5.366 • Feldman Farb, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2012). Recent advances in research on school-based extracurricular activities and
adolescent development. Developmental Review, 32, 1-48. doi:10.1016.j.dr.2011.10.001 • Ferrari, J. R., & Parker, J. T. (1992). High school achievement, self-efficacy, and locus of control as predictors of freshman
academic performance. Psychological Reports, 71, 515-518. • Harrell, A., Burt, M., Hatry, H., Rossman, S., Roth, J., & Sabol, W. (1996). Evaluation strategies for human services programs.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. • Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (4th ed.). Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 275-385). New York, NY: Wiley. • Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Introduction to methods in community-based participatory research
for health. In B. A. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, & E. A. Parker (Eds.), Methods in community-based participatory research for health (pp. 3-26). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
SELECTED REFERENCES • Jerusalem, M., & Mittag, W. (1995). Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing
societies (pp. 177-201). • Marsh, H. W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or a subversion of academic
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 553-562. • McDavid, J. C., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2006). Program evaluation & performance measurement: An introduction to practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Meece, J. L., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). Gender in schooling. In J. Worell & C. Goodheart (Eds.) Handbook of girls' and
women’s psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan. New York, NY: Oxford Press. • Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies
(pp. 149-176).9.) • Passel, J. S. (2011). Demography of immigrant youth: Past, present, and future. The Future of Children, 21(1), 19-41.
doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0001 • Roffman, J. G., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Rhodes, J. E. (2003). Facilitating positive development in immigrant youth: The role of
mentors and community organizations. In F. A. Villarruel, D. F. Perkins, L. M. Borden, & J. G. Keith (Eds.), Community youth development: Programs, policies, and practices (pp. 90-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scholz, U., Dona, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251. doi: 10.1027//10156-5759.18.3.242
• Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescents. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs in adolescents (pp. 71-96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
• Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15-31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Shakya, Y. B., Khanlou, N., & Gonsalves, T. (2010). Determinants of mental health for newcomer youth: Policy and service implications. Canadian Issues, Summer 2010, 98-102.
• Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663-671.
• Stearns, E., & Glennie, E. J. (2010). Opportunities to participate: Extracurricular activities’ distribution across and academic correlates in high school. Social Science Research, 39, 296-309. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.001
• Suárez-Orozco, C., Gaytán, F. X., Bang, H. J., Pakes, J., O'Connor, E., & Rhodes, J. (2010). Academic trajectories of newcomer immigrant youth. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 602-618. doi:10.1037/a0018201
• Suárez-Orozco, C., Pimentel, A., & Martin, M. (2009). The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. The Teachers College Record, 111(3), 712-749.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report. Washington D.C.: Office of Public Health and Science.