.1

kw»...

is» n
q _
x

 

...ﬁ.mm.«.
. , a .310
“ﬂank-#3.. A W“
ﬁght“.
3‘ .. in I!
an“, “shun ‘ nun. .1
u» ‘3 is 3

.5 ¥

. .
. .30 I
t"‘ ‘
. 3w? h...
:2. A
:3. a...

‘ «I :u.rn.v1.u V .
i a .333. ‘WmWaisnxi. .ﬂ
1:? a 3.. I... «x...
2.-.. .m aid . Iﬁiiﬁn‘
1......qu
I i:
u . 373.1%.
V't‘n: ‘Iﬁﬂi‘t—K‘I
5:

 

 

3.0.1113325
51 i1. 2. ill? chit-nu ,
.\3!I.i...i§.z I7 :1!!!-
s a”... 3 90.? “VAN”
5.0.3.9- , . i I
5143...! x... .
.Id‘ﬂl...!x! 1...
nut". 13“: .a
. .

 

2...»...
3.02-
i....J.J.a.inJi.

.. is... 131.014 z!
3- .31.)!!! ,.
:1..I.Psa..nh.
01-5") .IPA‘X‘I’YV
3“!“
2 a

I .151. u! 5.11 A1
#73... 1A Q

.1: 1%]...1 .i 1...!
t, n. . thnvauﬁs
. a . - [sﬁ

 

 

 

 

3.73mi. ulna #15. .5 55. . 1330....3213135t95c5. Hanna—n,HFEEiKI-hﬁggeﬁbc.I

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT
MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN THE
MICHIGAN YOUTH FARM STAND PROJECT

presented by

ASHLEY ANNE BRANDER

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Community, Agriculture,
Science Recreation and
Resource Studies

 

 

 

 

I m . -
VEW { gothu/

Manr Professor’s Signature
4/ 25/ of

Date

 

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

._-_-—-_.—-—--—---—---—-o—o-o—I—-u-.-.-0-O-I-o-0-Q—O-I_A.-A-_-.—-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 K‘IProﬂAchrelelRCIDateDueindd

FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN
THE MICHIGAN YOUTH FARM STAND PROJECT

By

Ashley Anne Brander

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2008

ABSTRACT

FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN
THE MICHIGAN YOUTH FARM STAND PROJECT

By
Ashley Anne Brander

The purpose of the exploratory study was to understand what motivated and
engaged youth in the Michigan Youth Farm Stand Project (YFSP) offered by the CS
Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University. The qualitative
study included interviews and observations to explore the motivations and sustaining
factors inﬂuencing youth participants. An opportunity to earn money and have something
to do during the summer interested most students. Those with prior gardening experience
were motivated by the opporttmity to garden while having fun. Similarities and
differences emerged during the study; however, the opportunity to garden and spend time
with ﬁ'iends emerged as sustaining factors.

Teamwork, decision making and caring adults attributed to favorable project
components and emerged through the study as possible motivators to remain active,
which led to participant engagement. Participation barriers included transportation,
family commitments and discontinuation from the host program. Recognizing
participation barriers and involving youth in decision making enhances involvement and
provides youth opportunities to reap beneﬁts offered by participation in YFSP. Programs
that strive to provide positive impacts on youth in low-income communities can gain
insight from the ﬁndings in this study to strengthen and enhance youth knowledge and

skill in local food systems initiatives.

Copyright by
ASHLEY ANNE BRANDER
2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge all those who supported and encouraged
me during my time at Michigan State University. I will always remember the countless
number of individuals who have touched my life and impacted my journey as a masters’
student in the Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies Department.

Thank you to Dr. Jeno Rivera — my advisor, mentor, and friend. The opportunities
provided and the work we have done together have been phenomenal. Your encouraging
words, thoughtful advice and patience throughout my thesis and course work have not
gone unnoticed. I truly thank you for all that you’ve done for me.

I am very appreciative for the time and guidance my committee members offered.
Thank you Dr. Luke Reese, Dr. Randy Showerman, and Dr. Dave Krueger. I value the
opportunity to work with each of you through course work and my thesis. I learned a lot
of transferable skills from the courses that I will take with me into my career. Again,
thank you for the chance to work with each of you.

Thank you to the CS Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU for
providing me the opportunity to work with each of you and be part of the Youth Farm
Stand Project. The future of local food is in good hands with so many passionate and
committed people working on Michigan initiatives. Special thanks to Anne Scott for your
moral support and commitment to the Youth Farm Stand Project and my thesis work.
Your caring attitude and willingness to always help has been appreciated.

A special thank you to the youth participants and community site coordinators for
their time and help with my data collection. The opportunity to meet and work with each

of you has been great. The dedication you are showing to local food in your community

iv

is wonderful and you are making an impact. I encourage you to continue your dedication
and strive to continue the progressive work you are doing in your communities.

My acknowledgements would not be complete without thanking my parents —
Bob & Betty Brander. The dedication and commitment you have shown to my education
has never ended. I am truly grateful that you encouraged me to attend graduate school
and pursue another educational opportunity. The moral support and guidance throughout
my life has always been appreciated and although this journey is closed, I will always

look for new challenges with conﬁdence that you will be there to support me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. iix
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............................................................................. 1
Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 2
Youth Motivation & Engagement ................................................................................ 2
Current Situation — Food & Fiber System .................................................................. 3
What is the Youth Farm Stand Project? ..................................................................... 4
The Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 6
Professional Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................... 8
Overview of Methods ......................................................................................................... 9
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 1 1
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 12
Summary of Introduction .................................................................................................. 13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 14
Deﬁnition of Youth Engagement ...................................................................................... 15
Deﬁnition of Motivation ................................................................................................... 17
Motivational Theory ......................................................................................................... 18
Overview of Self-Determination Theory ................................................................... l8
Intrinsic Motivation .................................................................................................. 27
Extrinsic Motivation .................................................................................................. 27
Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Intrinsic Motivation ...................... 32
Summary of Self-Determination Theory ................................................................... 32
Motivation & Engagement — Linkages ............................................................................. 32
Enjoyment and Support ............................................................................................. 35
Parental Role ............................................................................................................ 36
Youth-Adult Relationships ........................................................................................ 38
Perceived Importance & Helping Others ................................................................. 38
Challenges & Skills ................................................................................................... 41
Barriers to Participation ........................................................................................... 42
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 44
Overview ............................................................................................. 44
Background to Study ................................................................................ 45
Description of Youth Farm Stand Project ................................................................ 45
Study Sites ................................................................................................................. 45
Data Collection ....................................................................................... 48
Study Design ............................................................................................................. 48
Sampling ............................................................................................. 51
Data Collection Techniques ........................................................................ 53

vi

Interviews & Observations ....................................................................................... 53

Procedures Used ....................................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 55
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 58
Question 1: Reasons youth initially joined YFSP ............................................... 61

Social: Something to Do ........................................................................................... 62

Social: Having Fun ................................................................................................... 63

Activities: Chance to earn money ............................................................................. 64

Activities: Gardening ................................................................................................ 66

Relationships: Family and Friends ........................................................................... 69

Future Ambitions and Skills ...................................................................................... 71
Summary of Why Youth Joined the Youth Farm Stand Project .............................. 72
Question 2: Positive Attributes of Youth Farm Stand Project Structure ..................... 73

Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 73

Teamwork .................................................................................................................. 75

Caring Adults/Mentors ............................................................................................. 77
Summary of Attributes of Farm Stand Project Components .................................. 78
Question 3: Youth Engagement — Sustained Project Involvement ........................... 78

Change in Youth Perceptions .................................................................................... 79

Reasons for Staying Involved .................................................................................... 81

Engaging Activities ................................................................................................... 82
Summary of Youth Engagement — Sustained Project Involvement ........................... 85
Question 4: Barriers to Participation .............................................................. 90
Summary of Barriers to Participation ............................................................. 93
Overall Summary: Results ......................................................................... 94
5. Discussion & Recommendations .................................................................................. 97
Researcher’s Insights into Results ................................................................ 97
Theoretical Implications ........................................................................... 105
Unanticipated Findings ............................................................................ 106
Implications for Practice ........................................................................... 108
Additional Research & Conclusion .............................................................. 111
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 1 14
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................ 115
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................ 1 17
APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................ 118
APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................ 118
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 120

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Description of sites and youth participants ...................................................... 46

Table 3.2. Illustration of information about data collection subjects and purpose/rationale

of each collection. ............................................................................................................. 49
Table 3.3. Youth and coordinators participating in interviews. ........................................ 52
Table 4.1. Students and coordinators involved in data collection. ................................... 58
Table 4.2. Summary of youth interview data .................................................................... 87
Table 4.3. Barriers impacting youth participation in farm stand project. ......................... 90

Table D. Checklist matrix of research question themes and sub-themes as related to the
coding scheme ................................................................................................................. 118

Tables E. Conceptually clustered matrix ........................................................................ 119

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. The self-determination continuum .................................................. 29
Figure 4.1. Conceptual framework of why youth joined the farm stand project. ............. 62

Figure 4.2. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Applegate
students. ............................................................................................................................ 94

Figure 4.3. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Bell students. 95

Figure 4.4. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Coldwater
students. ............................................................................................................................ 95

Figure 4.5. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Duffy students. . 95

Figure 4.6. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Elgin students... 96

ix

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

In today’s society, youth play an integral role in their own development and use
of time outside school hours. The matter of how youth choose to spend their time is a
concern to parents, teachers, and human services professionals and to youth themselves.
Most people probably agree participation in quality youth programs is a good opportunity
for youth development and skill building. With a growing interest in issues pertaining to
how young people choose to participate or not participate in youth programs, the study
examined what motivated and engaged youth involvement in an innovative community-
based program -— the Michigan Youth Farm Stand Project (YFSP).

The project was community-based and offered through a variety of after-school
programs, agricultural and natural resources education, 4-H groups and community
programs. Practices and relationships formed in such programs provide an avenue for
skill development, personal gratiﬁcation, and integration within community. It is
dissatisfying to know that not enough youth are taking advantage of these opportunities
and engaging in these growth-enhancing activities (Saito, 2006).

With the apparent beneﬁts of participating in activities, it is important to increase
access to participation and remove barriers. It is equally important to design programs of
interest that are available (Borden, Perkins, Villarruel, & Stone, 2005). It recently has
been reported youth often attend programs either irregularly or for only a short time
before they quit (Lauver & Little, 2005). Further, becoming physiologically engaged
increases the beneﬁts obtained and the likelihood of continued participation (Ferrari &
Turner, 2006; Bartko, 2005 ). Youth must become interested and motivated in activities to

engage and beneﬁt from learning objectives and other valuable experiences.

The question of how youth become motivated and engaged is crucial to youth
development programs. This impacts not only youth but also resources and time required
by program stakeholders and organizers to recruit and retain. Without active participants,
future sustainability of programs may be jeopardized. This chapter addresses:

0 Background of the study

' Research questions

0 Professional signiﬁcance of the study
' Overview of the methodology

' Delimitations

' Limitations

 

Background of the Study

Youth Motivation & Engagement

Positive youth development is a desired outcome of organized activities. The
extent to which organized activities inﬂuence development can vary across individual
youth, programs and community settings (Mahoney, Larson, Eccles, & Lord, 2005). In
order to experience the greatest development in organized activities, participants must
join and continue participation (Mahoney et al., 2005; Bartko, 2005). Youth who are
active and engaged in an activity are more likely to continue participation and beneﬁt
from the positive aspects offered (Pearce & Larson, 2006).

To become engaged, one must be interested and motivated by program activities
(Larson, 2000; Vandell, et al., 2005). The study deﬁned engagement as, “meaningful
participation and sustained involvement in an activity with a focus outside of him or

herself’ (Center of Excellence for Youth Engagement, 2004). Further, the study deﬁned

 

engagement as participating and expressing interest while in attendance. Even if external
barriers force discontinued participation, youth may be perceived as engaged during their
time with the program. The study adapted Ryan & Deci’s (2000) motivation deﬁnition.
Motivation is concerned with energy, direction and persistence — all aspects of activation
and intention. Developing and implementing meaningful and engaging programs which
enhance individual skills is a priority of many community programs. Research lacks in
youth motivation and engagement. Thomas (2007) found most research focuses on
youths’ motivation and engagement in academic learning environments.

Current Situation — Food & Fiber System

Throughout Michigan, local groups are expanding food systems to include health,
access, and local economic value. Michigan ranks second in the United States for
agriculture diversity attributing to more than $60 billion to Michigan’s economy
(Michigan Ag Council, n.d.). Fostering support and stimulating interest in local
agriculture and food and ﬁber systems remains a priority for stakeholders and enthusiasts.
Community groups are connecting consumers to growers while fostering economic
vitality for local farmers. Increased access to healthy local food provides Michigan’s
resource exhausted and densely populated communities’ opportunities to link food and
civic revitalization (Cocciarelli & Reardon, 2006).

The food and ﬁber system has changed dramatically in the United States in the
last half of the twentieth century with industrialization of production and processing
operations. Farmer control over marketing and labor decisions is being replaced by
corporate control. Rural communities are struggling socially and economically as

consumers’ gradually lose knowledge of their primary food sources (Garrett & Feenstra,

 

n.d). In areas of high poverty, such as inner cities and remote rural towns, access to
healthy, local food is not always available.

Community-based foods systems are promoted in Michigan and across North
America as a way to connect food growers and consumers, retailers and distributors,
processors and preparers. A community-based system gives priority to local resources
and focuses on local markets, while ensuring environmental sustainability and social
equity (Heller, 2006). To be successful, community-based food systems rely on informed
customers having a stake in how and where food is produced, processed and sold. For
relationships to form, the younger generation needs education and a willingness to
promote local agriculture and food production in their communities. Heller (2006) states
by eating local and making connections among farmers, consumers, processors and
retailers, a greater impact on health and well-being of communities is anticipated.
Programs and initiatives throughout North America are attempting to address the need to
build community-based food systems. The study involves youth - the future voices of
communities, agriculture and food systems.

What is the Youth Farm Stand Project?

According to Michael Hamm, the CS. Mott Chair of Sustainable Food Systems at
Michigan State University, the future of food systems in the state is a niche market with
emphasis placed on community foods, value—added products, community sustainable
agriculture (CSA), and urban agriculture, to name a few (M. Hamm, personal
communication, January 15, 2007). To begin intertwining the future of food production
and youth, the CS. Mott Group developed the Youth Farm Stand Project (YFSP), a

program focusing on nutrition education, entrepreneurship and sustainable local food

systems. This is one of several initiatives through the Mott Group attempting to tackle
the larger question of Who will feed Michigan? Joining forces with agriculture and
natural resources education programs and community stakeholders, youth are given
opportunities to experience topics of sustainable agriculture, food nutrition,
entrepreneurship, and community foods.

YFSP attempted to address issues of food access and availability in Michigan
through two mechanisms: (1) nutrition and entrepreneurial education designed to impact
purchase and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, and (2) product proximity in
targeted neighborhoods (Cocciarelli & Reardon, 2006). The program was a collaborative

effort between the CS. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU, USDA

 

Family Nutrition Program (FNP), community partners and Michigan youth. The
foundation of YFSP was to integrate community-based food systems with food
production and local communities. Equally important were experiences gained by youth;
including, opportunity for leadership development, connecting with community for
resources, and networking with farmers. Community connections included strengthening
ties through networking with members for donations in time or resources. Networking
with farmers provided opportunity to negotiate in share-cropping or product procurement.
YFSP was a program targeting low-income urban communities. There were no prescribed
steps in YFSP; each action plan was youth driven, community-based and locally unique.
Youth created Operational business plans, grew and/or procured produce, became
ambassadors of healthy food, prepared cooking demonstrations, and directly marketed
produce locally. Youth were exposed ﬁrst hand to local community food systems and the

environmental and economic impacts that promoted the systems over time.

YFSP was piloted in 2005 with two Michigan sites. Results highlighted positive
change in nutrition education and in reaching low-income communities. The CS. Mott
Group, with funding from FNP, provided opportunity for six programs to be implemented
in Michigan for the 2006-07 year. Sites ranged from inner city urban schools to rural
agriculture and natural resources education programs. Although the sites were connected
to a school district or school program, the project emphasized integrating the components
of a community—based food system in neighborhoods. The schools were only one link of
the connection. All sites were located in resource-lacking communities. To meet the
criteria for FNP funding sites had to establish that over 50 percent of students at the

school qualiﬁed for the free and reduced lunch program. '

 

Each site offered a different approach to meet program objectives. Whether it was
through formal school programming or after school activity, unique tactics used made
each program individually successful. Each approach proved how diversity of youth
impacts programs and how program diversity inﬂuences beneﬁts gained by participants.
Beneﬁts can be reached through interaction between program coordinators, caring adults,
youth and communities. Interpreting what motivated and engaged youth in YFSP was a
signiﬁcant component of evaluating program outcomes — without participation the project
would not have succeeded.

The Problem Statement

Research has focused on positive and negative consequences of youth
participation in extracurricular activities; yet, researchers have failed to ask why
individuals participate in programs and why they continue participation over time

(Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Thomas, 2007). Rather than focusing on academic

engagement, where most engagement research has been done (Thomas, 2007; Weiss,
Little & Bouffard, 2005), the study addressed engagement through the lens of organized
activities and community programs. The lack of youth engagement research has
researchers examining how to engage and motivate students out of school time hours
(Thomas, 2007).

Integration of community-based food initiatives, such as farmers markets and
community gardens, have potential to boost effectiveness of USDA nutrition assistance
and education programs by increasing availability and affordability of nutritious food
(Scott-Kantor, 2001). Such programs also provide opportunity for youth involvement in

the community. School-aged children in the United States and other Western nations

 

spend nearly 50 percent of their waking hours in leisure activities (Mahoney et. al, 2005).
Analyzing how young people can best use time and become integrated into communities
has been an area of discussion, yet research over the past 100 years has ignored time
youth spend out of school (Kleiber & Powell, 2005). More recently an increased interest
in after-school hours and the beneﬁts offered to youth participating in these extra-
curricular and community-based programs have been examined.

The food and ﬁber system is vital to human existence and youth are the next
generation to fulﬁll needs of agriculture production, education, and consumption. It
makes sense to develop programs teaching adolescents the importance of community-
based food systems and healthy eating. Integrating community-food systems education
with youth programming provides opportunities to educate young people about local food

systems while providing avenues to engage them in after-school activities. Such activities

promote positive development and help build skills not available in the classroom. Yet,
these skills are not fostered without motivated and engaged youth.

The study examined the levels of motivation and engagement by YF SP
participants. To reap success and realize beneﬁts, youth must join and remain engaged in
programs (Pearce & Larson, 2006). The following research questions guided the study.

1. What initially motivated youth to join the farm stand project?

2. What components of the project did the youth ﬁnd most enjoyable?

3. What factors inﬂuenced sustained engagement in the project?

4. What barriers did youth face preventing continued participation in the

project?
Motivational factors and engagement process of youth attributed to achievement gained
by YFSP communities. With a youth-driven program, active participation inﬂuences
success while ensuring project sustainability.
Professional Signiﬁcance of the Study

Emerging community-based food systems are impacting thousands of
communities across the United States. With diverse initiatives and potential impact on
local communities, food systems are emerging across the nation. Incorporating youth in
community-based food systems attempts to foster education surrounding eating local,
healthy foods while becoming ambassadors in future food systems. Research has become
increasingly more important for assessing how youth spend leisure time and the value of
developing programs that initiate involvement and community engagement.

Research has not signiﬁcantly addressed community-based programs. Although

small in magnitude the study has potential to impact future programming and recruitment

 

for community-based food systems and youth programs. Further, motivation for
participating and reasons for continued engagement can be used to develop new
community-based programs and/or programs focusing on youth involvement in food
systems. Results of the study may change recruitment and retention methods, as they
provide reason for participation. While recruiting youth, coordinators can emphasize
program objectives meeting motivation and engagement needs.

Youth recounting reasons for participation and continued engagement provides
perspective on experience and served as the foundation of the study. Vandell et al. (2005)
illustrated it is possible to assess youths’ engagement level by asking about their feelings
and experiences. Thus youth were the informants sought to answer the study’s research
questions. Prior research about YF SP was minimal and youth motivation data was not
included. Youth involvement and engagement was a priority for the study because of its
signiﬁcant impact on overall program success.

Overview of Methods

Research from the students’ perspective is lacking in the ﬁeld of youth
development. With the intent of capturing data about their motivation and engagement in
YFSP, research was conducted gaining the youths’ perspective. Although additional
information was gathered from site coordinators, the main focus was youth centered,
particularly, 15 youth participants, three youth from each site.

The qualitative study encompassed data collection at ﬁve youth farm stand sites in
Michigan in 2006-07. Coordinators selected 15 students to participate in the study.
Purposeful sampling was used to select students involved with YFSP since its inception

in the community. This method was used to ensure collected data was rich and provided

 

data to inform research questions. Because of the nature of the questions — youth
motivation and engagement — qualitative research was used to better understand the
experiences of the participants in the YF SP.

Data collection consisted of two rounds of youth interviews exploring motivation
and engagement of students. Interviews were held during early spring while second
interviews took place in September. The study design was modiﬁed including coordinator
interviews in September; this accounted for seven youth who did not participate in
second round student interviews. Coordinators were asked to give perceptions on why
students did not complete the farm stand project. During summer months, one
observation was conducted to understand project logistics and gave the researcher
opportunity to interact with students. Interaction with students yielded additional data
encompassing youth beyond those interviewed at the sites.

The study sample was taken from youth participating in YF SP at ﬁve sites.
Interviews were in-depth and conducted individually by the same interviewer. Interviews
included questions about reason for joining and continued participation. Interview guides
were used to lead discussions; however, the interviewer allowed data to emerge and
subsequently followed-up on relevant topics (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

Data was coded and analyzed with aid of qualitative data analysis software,
NVivo 7. Cluster matrices and memos helped interpret and summarize the data collected
for each research question. Narrative was collected and summary statements were

derived as a starting point in writing results.

10

 

Delimitations

Although YF SP encompassed about 70 participants in 2006-07, the study sample
focused on 15 youth and ﬁve coordinators. The intent of the study was not to interact and
gain information from all involved, especially youth. Bassett, Beagan, Ristovski-
Slijepcevic and Chapman (2008) cited recruitment of youth as the most challenging
component of research with adolescents. Because of conﬂicting schedules and ability to
meet with students, three students were selected from each site. In part, the difﬁculty in
recruiting youth for research guided the study and was designed to gain informative data
from a sample of youth, not each participant. The study results do not represent the entire
population of participants; however, this was not the intent.

The YFSP was in its second year, and its ﬁrst full year beyond the pilot of the
project. There was very little research done on YFSP prior to the study and therefore
project design was exploratory. Because the program was new, it was difficult to
anticipate youth participation level throughout the project. Rather than random sampling,
purposeful sampling was selected to ensure youth interviewed had shown initial
involvement in YFSP. The researcher did not want students included in the sample who
participated on only a few occasions. This impacts the ability to generalize the study
results across all youth participants in YFSP. However, the study provides a basis for
future YFSP motivation and engagement research, as the results yielded are from a select
group of participants.

Limitations
Maxwell (2005) stated researcher bias and reactivity are the main threats to

validity. Because of the exploratory nature of the study, researcher’s understandings of

11

 

youth motivation to participate in the farm stand project evolved through data collections.
The conceptual framework changed from the beginning to the ﬁnal draft, indicating the
researcher allowed themes to emerge and preconceived ideas were not factored during
data collection. The study’s purpose and research questions were clearly stated and the
process for data collection was made apparent.

Subject reactivity is evidence of validity, yet during this research project,
reactivity to the researcher was not sensed. The data process was explicitly presented and
throughout the project colleagues were consulted and feedback given on emerging
themes and developing ideas.

Another limitation is in-depth interviews with youth. With the intent of making
interviews open-ended, many questions required follow-up and probing to receive
enough information to inform research questions. Bassett et. al (2008) stated when
adolescents could not be engaged in extended conversation it became difficult to continue
the interview process beyond one-word answers. This obstacle forced the researcher to
adapt questions and make them more semi-structured to gather enough qualitative data to
complete the study. This minor adjustment reiterates the difﬁculty of involving youth in
qualitative research studies; yet the results prove with probing and more structure, results
are sufﬁcient and informative.

Summary of Introduction

With the study brieﬂy outlined in this introductory chapter, evidence shows need
for structured after-school programming. Community-food system initiatives can
entertain this need. By exposing students to YFSP, it provides avenue for participation in

communities and makes connections with local food systems. Motivation and

12

 

engagement are key elements to sustained participant involvement and through the
remaining chapters; the study is highlighted, including: review of literature, methods,

results, and discussion and recommendations.

13

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Much research has been done pertaining to the positive and negative
consequences of youth participation in extracunicular activities; yet, researchers have
failed to ask why individuals participate in programs (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997). In
general, researchers have implied motivation is an intra-individual process focused on
needs, attitudes, goals, experiences, and values a person brings to a situation (Eccles,
Wigﬁeld, & Schiefele, 1998). Motivation related to extracurricular research has not
addressed how situational contexts impact individual’s desires to continue participation
or withdrawal from the activity (Fredericks, et al., 2002). Youth have a built-in
motivational system with potential to engage them in positive development (Larson,
2006). Patterns of student engagement and disengagement from learning have emerged
on in-school situations; however, the role of community-based settings in fostering
engagement and learning has received less attention and is less understood (Thomas,
2007)

Motivation and engagement are often used interchangeably. However, it is
important to differentiate the two concepts. Youth can be motivated, yet unengaged in
their actions. Motivation is about energy and direction, reasons for behavior. Engagement
describes energy in action, the connection between person and activity (Russell, Ainley,
& Frydenberg, n.d.) This chapter synthesizes the theoretical and empirical research
completed on what motivates and engages youth in the contexts of after-school,
community based programs, and service learning initiatives. It is organized in a way that
the foundational theory and deﬁnitions used to derive the framework for the study are
addressed followed by supporting work and suggested ﬁndings proposed by

developmental psychologists and youth motivation and engagement researchers.

14

Deﬁnition of Youth Engagement

Rather than focusing on academic engagement, where most engagement research
has been done (Thomas, 2007; Weiss, Little & Bouffard, 2005), this section addresses
engagement through the lens of organized activities and community programs outside the
academic arena. In order for youth to experience positive development provided by
organized activities, they must join and become psychologically engaged (Pearce &
Larson, 2006). Developmentally, engagement is a growth producing activity in which
individuals allocate attention in response to their environment (Csikszentrnihalyi, 1990).
Engagement is more than motivation or the desire to succeed; it involves participation,
connection, attachment and integration into settings (N ewmann, 1986). Although derived
from an academic standpoint, Strong, Silver and Robinson (1995) state engaged students
are driven by the following four goals: success (the need for mastery), curiosity (the need
for understanding), originality (the need for self-expression) and relationships (the need
for involvement with others). This relates to community engagement because of youths’
desire to join an activity on their level of interest and to perceive connection to a group.
Further this is explained in the section relating to the three needs: (1) competence, (2)
autonomy, and (3) relatedness.

Walker (2006) deﬁnes engagement as “the extent to which young people are
involved, interested, and enthusiastic about what they are doing.” Nakamura (2001) states
the key features of engagement in an activity are: (1) the individual experiences “enjoyed
absorption” in the activity, sustained over time, (2) the activity providing a link between
the individual and the outside world and, (3) the activity has a feeling of meaning and

signiﬁcance. According to The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement, the concept

15

of youth engagement is deﬁned as the “meaningful participation and sustained
involvement in an activity with a focus outside of him or herself” (2004). The stated
deﬁnitions are relational to one another and combined offer important pieces to the youth
engagement. The Center of Excellence for Youth Engagement, deﬁnition best aligns with
the study as it supports sustained involvement, encouraged by the deﬁned motivation
theory driving the study. The concept of engagement is often used interchangeably with
other ideas, including, but not limited to involvement, participation, volunteering and
community service (Yeung, 2007). For the purpose of the study, consider all
aforementioned terms as synonyms of engagement.

Walker stated young people are engaged when they are involved and participating
in something they enjoy doing. For the study, this concept is also integrated especially
because sustained engagement for an entire year may not result in some programs
because of their inherent nature. External barriers can cause youth not to attend; not
because they do not want to but because other obstacles prevent participation. For the
study, youth are engaged when they have every opportunity to attend and participate in
meaningful activities and show apparent interest. If youth discontinue participation for
external reasons beyond their control it does not imply they were not engaged while
participating.

Youth engagement can be thought of on two levels — an individual level and a
systems level (Pancer, Rose-Krasnor, & Loiselle, n.d). Youth initially become involved
in organized activities because of ‘initiating factors’. Such factors include the inﬂuence
of others, such as parents, ﬁiends or teachers (N akamura, 2001 .) At the systems level,

such factors include organization of youth activities in the community (Pancer et al., n.d).

16

Engagement is sustained if additional ‘sustaining factors’ are present; such factors for
individual youth are supportive environments and positive experiences (Pancer et al.,
n.d). At the systems level, engagement is sustained if youth are in an environment having
values and structure supported by adults as meaningful activities (Pancer et al, n.d). If
initiating and sustaining factors are present, engagement will occur (N akamura, 2001),
meaning youth experience positive engagement outcomes (Pancer & Pratt, 1999).
However, Eccles & Barber (1999) noted some forms of engagement do not lead to
substantive change either on an individual or systems level in accordance to outcomes
experienced by youth. Although an important aspect of engagement, outcomes are not
part of the study and will not be further discussed.
Deﬁnition of Motivation

Ryan & Deci (2000) deﬁne motivation as being concerned with energy, direction
and persistence — all aspects of activation and intention. Motivation has been a central
issue in the ﬁeld of psychology, as it is the core of biological, cognitive and social
regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation is perhaps more important in the “real
world” as it is highly valued because of its consequences; teachers, managers, coaches
and parents among others are concerned with motivation because it produces results.
People are motivated to act because of different factors and experiences. They can be
motivated to participate because of interest or external coercion. This is the basis of
extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. The issue of whether people stand behind a behavior
out of their interests and values, or do it for reasons external to the self is important in
many situations and cultures representing basic reasoning by which people make sense of

their behaviors and others’ (deCharms, 1968; Heider, 1958; Ryan & Connell, 1989).

17

Motivational Theory

Motivational theories are concerned with the energization and direction of
behavior; more precisely — what gets people moving towards activities or tasks (Pintrich,
2003; Russell et al, n.d). It has been suggested this reﬂects one central theme, what do
individuals want and are there are basic needs that deﬁne what they want (Higgins &
Kruglanski, 2000). Rather than examining motivation broadly, the study focused on
different stages of motivation and its relationship to engagement and thus requires a more
centered approach. A needs’ based motivation theory was not chosen because the study
examined more than motivation; it examined a change from motivation to engagement.
Self-determination theory was utilized as the theory of choice when developing the
framework of this study. Pearce and Larson (2006) identiﬁed that self-determination
theory provides a useful framework for thinking about how youth are motivated and then
engaged in an activity and how this transformation occurs. Ryan and Deci (2000, 2003)
suggest self-determination theory provides a lens to look at the continuum of amotivation
to extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, with degrees along this continuum
representing greater personal engagement (Pearce & Larson, 2006). Theoretical and
empirical work is presented on self-determination theory and further looks at how the
theory is connected to motivation and engagement.
Overview of Self-Determination Theory

Human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alternatively, passive. These
traits are determined largely on the social conditions in which they develop and function
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research guided by self-determination theory (SDT) has focused

on the social conditions that facilitate versus inhibit the natural processes of self-

18

motivation and physiological development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Fundamentally, self-
deterrnination is an issue of choice and is a theory built on concepts such as choice,
intentionality, or will (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-determination looks at factors enhancing
versus undermining intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and well-being (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Deci, 1980). Deci (1980) also stated it is a physiological
construct referring to people’s ﬂexibility and capacity to choose among behavioral
options and to accommodate situations where only one option is possible.

There are major differences between self-motivation and external regulation. A
major component of SDT has been to take a differentiated approach to motivation and
look at the different kinds of motivation that are being exhibited at any one time (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). By looking at what forces move a person to act, SDT has identiﬁed several
types of motivation, each of which have consequences for learning, performance,
experience and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002).

SDT focuses on inherent growth tendencies and physiological needs that are the
basis for self-motivation and personality integration (Ryan & Deci, 2002). There are three
basic needs that have been identiﬁed, as the fundamental physiological needs: (1) the
need for competence, (2) the need for relatedness, and (3) the need for autonomy. Jacob
(1973) deﬁnes a need as something that must be fulﬁlled if a living thing is to persist and
thrive. In the ﬁeld of biology the need concept is far less controversial compared to the
need concept in psychology (Ryan & Deci, 2002); however, SDT maintains there are
necessary conditions for growth and well-being of people’s personalities and cognitive
structure, just as there are for physical development and functioning (Ryan & Deci,

2002). The need for competence, relatedness and autonomy are known as the basic

19

physiological needs, also known universally as innate requirements not acquired motives,
and are evident in all cultures and developmental periods (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Whether

or not people are conscious of needs, the healthy human mind strives for these nutriments
or needs and when possible gravitate towards situations that provide them (Ryan & Deci,
2002)

The need for competence refers to feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions
with social environments while experiencing opportunities to express one’s capacities
(Deci, 1975; Harter, 1983; White 1959). Competence is the accumulated result of one’s
interaction with the environment, of one’s learning and one’s adaptation to situations
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). White (1959) proposed a need for effectance - satisfying and
exercising one’s capabilities. This is referred to effectance motivation and the feeling of
efﬁcacy. The term competence is used to indicate the structures through which effectance
motivation operates (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Deci (1975) suggested the need for
competence also makes people seek challenges that are optimal to their capacities.
Danner and Lonky (1981) supported this statement by concluding when children were
free to select activities they would participate in, compared to not selecting; they selected
ones that were slightly beyond their current level of competence. Competence is not an
attained skill or capability but rather a perceived attitude while in a social environment
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). Competence and effectance are often used interchangeably; for this
review competence is the term used throughout.

As motivational literature suggests, people participate in activities because of
their perceived competence. Youths’ perceptions of themselves and what they are good at

are expected to contribute to their involvement and commitment to activities (Patrick et

20

al., 1999; Carlson, 1998). In a study conducted by F redericks et al. (2002), youth
suggested increased self-conﬁdence resulting from competence in the activity contributed
to ongoing participation. Conversely, those youth who did not feel competent in their
skills tended to lose interest in activities over time. For example, the development of
competence and self-esteem were stated as main reasons for participation in Boys & Girls
Club programs amongst African-American or Latino and living below the poverty line
(Borden, Perkins, Villarruel, & Stone, 2005). Youth who receive positive recognition
from signiﬁcant people, such as coaches and parents, strengthened their perceptions of
their own abilities and thus helped encourage continued commitment to the activity
(Fredericks et al., 2002).

The second basic physiological need is the need for relatedness. Relatedness
refers to feeling connected to others, caring for and being cared for by others, having a
sense of belongingness with individuals and within one’s community (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Harlow, 1958; Ryan, 1995). Engagement happens when
adults create a sense of belonging and youth feel connected to the activity (Pete, 2004).
Further, relatedness refers to connecting with others and feeling accepted; however, this
does not mean acceptance through status but rather physiological sense of being with
others in unity or community (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

The third basic physiological need is the need for autonomy. It refers to the
perceived origin or source of one’s behavior (deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan
& Connell, 1989). Autonomy supportive techniques include: taking the other’s
perspectives, acknowledging the other’s feelings, providing information and choice, and

minimizing use of control (Guay, Boggiano & Vallerand, 2001). People act from interest

21

and integrated values; when autonomous, people experience their behavior as an
expression of the self (Ryan & Deci, 2002). deCharms stated people strive to feel like an
origin of their own behavior, striving for personal causation (1968). This implies people
need to feel behavior has been chosen by them rather than imposed by an external source
(Deci & Flaste, 1995). When one is autonomous they are willing to continue interaction
as they embrace the activity with a sense of interest and commitment (Deci & Flaste,
1995)

Giving students choices, even when they may seem trivial or irrelevant to
instruction has proven to enhance interest (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Iyengar & Lepper,
1999). Choices lead to ownership and have been related to autonomy. Autonomy and
independence should not be confused; independence refers to the concept of not relying
on external sources or inﬂuences (Ryan & Deci, 2002) and the concepts are not related
(Ryan & Lynch, 1989; Ryan, 1993).

Deci and Ryan (1985) theorize that people enjoy, prefer and persist at activities
that provide them opportunities to make choices and control their own outcomes.
Conversely, without choice and control, detrimental impacts on intrinsic motivation and
life satisfaction can result (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). Young people are often motivated
to participate and continue their participation when they have a choice in what they learn
and activities they join (Carlson, 1998; Larson, Walker, & Pearce, 2005; Thomas, 2007;
Walker, 2006; Borden et al., 2005). An important part of participating in activities is the
youth’s responsibility in choosing the activity in which to participate (Carter & Nelson,

1984)

22

Carlson’s (1998) youth-driven model is based on a learner who is self-directed
and involved and has a sense of choice within their environment. The model implies
youth are intrinsically motivated with choices that are fun and relevant to their futures
and that youth can complete the task, thus achieving self-efﬁcacy. In 4-H activities,
young people are often self-motivated to learn when they have a choice in what they
learn (Carlson, 1998). Further, Walker (2006) states providing choice and ﬂexibility
encourages youth to take charge of their learning and own development. Walker states
choosing level of participation, roles and ways of contributing portrays to youth they are
in control promoting positive thinking and continuous involvement. For activity
programming, Saito (2006) found youth enjoyed working on projects that had some level
of autonomy and inﬂuence over important decisions in order to feel important as
community members.

Failure to satisfy any three basic physiological needs can result in decreased
personal development and happiness (Deci & Flaste, 1995). The concept of basic
physiological needs is different from the broader areas of personal motives, desires and
strivings (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Although people may devise motives to meet needs, it is
clear there are many motives that do not qualify as being essential for well-being and
may be unfavorable. Even when people are highly successﬁil at satisfying motives the
motives still may be detrimental to their well-being if they interfere with autonomy and
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002). This point is important because it shows that
successfully obtaining goals is not enough to ensure physiological well-being. Goals and

motives relating to behavior must be viewed as either being minor to physiological needs

23

or as being substitutes that developed as compensations when basic needs were not met
(Deci, 1980).
Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the natural tendency to engage one’s interests and exercise
one’s capacities to seek out challenges to learn and explore (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Such motivation emerges spontaneously from internal tendencies and can
motivate behavior without extrinsic rewards or environmental controls (Deci & Ryan,
1985). It has been suggested no single phenomenon reﬂects the positive potential of
human nature as much as intrinsic motivation does (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Humans are
endowed with intrinsically motivating tendencies at birth. Their inclinations toward
mastery, spontaneity, and exploration are essential to social and cognitive development as
sources of enjoyment and strength throughout life (Csikszentrnihalyi & Rathunde, 1993;
Ryan, 1995). Although these behaviors are natural at birth, maintenance of these
inclinations needs support. The theory and research behind intrinsic motivation views
how these tendencies can be sustained rather than what causes intrinsic motivation (Ryan
& Deci, 2002).

Fredericks et a1. (2002) conducted a study on youth’s participation in athletics
and arts programs, and reported that if youth perceived the activity to be less challenging,
they were not motivated to keep investing their time in the activity. It has also been
found humans learn more effectively when they are intrinsically motivated or they have
internalized a learning goal — a person does not have to enjoy every moment to remain

engaged (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2003).

24

Csikszentrnihalyi & Rathunde (1993) found intrinsic motivation is strongest when
individuals are engaged with a challenge meeting their abilities. Motivation and
engagement declines when tasks are too difﬁcult or too easy. Eccles et al., (1998)
derived that motivational system such as the need for competence and autonomy, self-
efﬁcacy and interest, encouraged engagement in challenging, task-oriented behaviors,
including learning. People are most motivated to take on challenges when they
experience ownership of what they are doing — when they see themselves as agents of
their actions. This motivation can later lead to engagement (Eccles et al., 1998; Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Carlson, 1998). Ownership is not required to be individualized; it can be part
of a collaborative group. Moreover, what is important is for internal motivation to be
sustained, one needs to perceive their actions as their own (Larson, 2006). This is
supported in a study conducted by Vandell et al., (2005). The study focused on how
youth viewed activities they participated in during different segments of time to see if
they offered foundational support for factors inﬂuencing youth engagement. Answers
reﬂected three factors: intrinsic motivation (enjoyment, choice, and interest), concerted
effort (challenge, skills, and concentration), and importance. The study also illustrated the
possibility to assess youth’s engagement level by asking about their feelings and
experiences.

Feedback and rewards that increase competence during the action can often
increase intrinsic motivation for that action. For example, early studies indicated positive
feedback enhanced intrinsic motivation, while negative feedback diminished motivation
(Deci, 1975; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). Further studies (Ryan, 1982) indicate

feelings of competence will not enhance intrinsic motivation unless accompanied by a

25

sense of autonomy. According to Ryan & Deci (2000) one must experience both
competence and experience as being self-determined or chosen (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Controversy resulted with repeated research indicating extrinsic rewards can
undermine intrinsic motivation. Deci (1975) interpreted these results as extrinsic rewards
diminishing autonomy. Although this topic has been debated, Deci et al., (1999)
completed a meta-analysis of 128 studies examining the impacts of extrinsic rewards on
intrinsic motivation concluding, engagement, completition and performance rewards
signiﬁcantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation. Engagement-contingent and
completion-contingent rewards also undermined self-interest. Further, tangible rewards
were indicated as being more detrimental to young youth compared to college students,
and verbal rewards tended to be less enticing for youth than college students (Deci et al.,
1999). Not only tangible rewards but threats (Deci & Cascio, 1972), deadlines (Amabile,
DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), surveillance (Lepper & Greene, 1975; Plant & Ryan, 1985),
and evaluation (Ryan, 1982), all decreased intrinsic motivation. In contrast, choice,
acknowledgement of feelings and opportunities for self-direction were found to enhance
intrinsic motivation because they allow for a greater feeling of autonomy (Deci & Ryan,
1985)

Although the meta-analysis showed extrinsic rewards undermining intrinsic
motivation, Hidi (2000) argued it may still be premature to conclude when people are
intrinsically motivated, tangible extrinsic rewards will always be detrimental
(Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Zimmerman, 1985). Hidi (2000) points out the studies
included in the meta-analysis focused on short-term simple activities; moreover, it is

inappropriate to conclude the same criteria would yield similar results if the relationship

26

between long-term activities and rewards were examined. The impacts of external
rewards may depend on the complexity of the activity and the length of involvement
(Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). A combination of intrinsic rewards imbedded in interesting
activities and external rewards, speciﬁcally feedback, may be necessary to maintain one’s
engagement over a difﬁcult activity or learning period (Hidi & Harackiewicz; 2000).
Additionally, Zimmerman (1985) concluded extrinsic rewards may be necessary when
individuals have no initial interest in the activity.

In a less degree than competence and autonomy, relatedness is the third need that
impacts intrinsic motivation. Researchers reported when children worked with adults who
ignored them and failed to respond to their initiations, a low level of intrinsic motivation
resulted (Anderson, Manoogian, & Reznick, 1976). Further, Grolnick and Ryan (1987)
reported when children worked with teachers, who were not caring or supportive, their
intrinsic motivation was diminished.

Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic motivation refers to behavior where the reason for acting is something
other than a personal interest in the activity. In other words, extrinsic motivation refers to
the performance of an activity in order to attain a separable outcome differing from
intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2002; Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). The activity
may be one that the person feels pressured to do rather than genuinely wants to do.
People may be extrinsically motivated by behaviors determined highly controlled versus
being determined by free choice of ones’ values and desires. (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Some
view extrinsically motivated behaviors as non-autonomous; however, SDT suggests

extrinsic motivation can vary greatly in its autonomy (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand,

27

2000). As an example, students who complete their homework because they value their
grades are extrinsically motivated, as are those students who complete homework under
parents’ control. Both examples provide instrumentalities rather than enjoyment for the
homework, yet the ﬁrst case involves personal choice where the second involves
compliance with an external regulation. These examples represent intentional behavior,
but their degree of autonomy varies (Heider, 195 8).

Researchers are concerned with understanding how individuals are motivated by
non-intrinsically motivated behaviors and how this motivation impacts their persistence
and well-being. As one (parent, teacher, coach, or boss) tries to foster motivation,
behavior may range from amotivation, to passive compliance to personal commitment
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). The differing stages of motivation reﬂect the degree at which the
behavior has been internalized and integrated by the individual. Intemalization refers to
one’s “taking in” a value or regulation and integration refers to one further transforming
the regulation into their own so it feels as though it comes from the self (Ryan & Deci,
2000)

The continuum from amotivation to intrinsic motivation involves several extrinsic
motivation steps involving different integration and internalization degrees of which are
illustrated in Figure 2.1. Pearce and Larson (2006) suggest this motivation continuum
may explain the process of motivation to engagement; as one is more motivated their
regulation increases and ultimately one’s behavior that was nonself-determined moves

towards self-determined.

28

 

 

 

| |
. . l . . . . l . .

Type of Amotivation | Extrrnsrc Motivation | Intrrnsrc
Motivation i l Motivatigr

l l
Type of Non- : External lnterjected Identiﬁed Integrated : Intrinsic
Regulation Regulation : Regulation Regulation Regulation Regulation : Regulation

E i >
Quality Of Nonself-Determined Self-Determined
Behavior ’

Engagement

Figure 2.1. The self-determination continuum.

 

Adapted from “Handbook of Self-Determination,” by RM. Ryan and EL. Deci. Copyright 2002 by The
University of Rochester Press.

Extrinsic motivation has different degrees and is represented by the continuum.
Amotivation is deﬁned as not acting at all or acting without intent (Ryan, 1995), or not
feeling competent to do it (Bandura, 1986). Many researchers have viewed extrinsic
motivation as a unitary concept. Ryan & Deci (2002) attempt to explain the ﬁve
categories of extrinsic motivation. The extrinsic categories lie between amotivation and
intrinsic motivation along the continuum, showing the variation that their regulation is
autonomous.

On the left side of extrinsic motivation lies external regulation — behaviors that
are least autonomous and done to obtain rewards or avoid punishments. External
regulation is when the reason for performing a behavior is to satisfy an external demand
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). Perceived locus of causality relates to the need for autonomy and
is said to affect how an event or activity changes one’s perception towards a more
external locus (Ryan & Connell, 1989). External regulation is motivation that has been

classically contrasted to intrinsic motivation in early research (deCharms, 1968).

29

Introjected regulation is a type of extrinsic motivation involving an external
regulation that has slightly internalized, but not accepted as one’s own (Deci & Ryan,
2002). Behaviors are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety and to boost one’s ego, such as
pride. Introj ection indicates individuals are motivated to demonstrate ability or avoid
failure in order to maintain feelings of self-worth (deCharms, 1968; Nicholls, 1984).
Studies by Ryan (1982) have shown when ego is involved as an outcome, one tends to
lose intrinsic motivation for the target activity and thus introj ected regulation is seen as
controlling and therefore not very autonomous. Although it is internally driven,
introjected regulation still has an external locus of causality and is not seen as part of the
self (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

As the continuum continues towards self-determination, identiﬁed regulation is
an extrinsic behavior more self-determined. It involves behavioral goals that are
personally important. Identiﬁcation is seen as a component in the process of transforming
external regulation into self-regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). As an individual becomes
conscious of the goal and begins to personally identify, a higher degree of perceived
autonomy results (Deci & Ryan, 2002). However, these identiﬁcations may be separated
from one’s other beliefs and values in which case their identiﬁcation with these goals
may not be equivalent to their ultimate goals or values in a given situation (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Yet, relative to the previous two degrees of extrinsic
motivation, external and introjected, identiﬁcation is relatively more autonomous and
self-determined.

The ﬁnal degree on the continuum is integrated regulation, referring to the most

autonomous or self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. It results when identiﬁed

30

regulations have been evaluated and brought into line with one’s already established
values, goals and needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Integrated regulation
is similar to intrinsic motivation; however, actions that characterize integration are done
to accomplish separable outcomes rather than enjoyment, an aspect of being intrinsically
motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One who shows characteristics of having integrated
motivation is still motivated for external outcomes, but the values are integrated in the
self.

As indicated, people internalize regulations and incorporate them into the self
experiencing more autonomy. This motivation continuum is not a developmental one and
does not suggest that people progress through stages to eventual self-determination.
Rather, they can experience this motivation at any particular time depending on the
situation and prior occurrences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, behaviors tend to become
more regulated over time and Chandler and Connell (1987) showed that children’s
regulatory style does tend to become more internalized or self-regulated over time.
Relationship between Extrinsic Motivation and Intrinsic Motivation

Researchers have deﬁned intrinsic and extrinsic motivation differently and these
concepts are growing more complex. Although Ryan & Deci (2000) keep intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation distinct, they suggest the same factors that inﬂuence one’s intrinsic
motivation may inﬂuence extrinsic motivation. Harackiewicz and Sansone (2000)
determined the extrinsic motivator (ex. rewards) could simultaneously initiate processes
resulting in greater intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, depending on the activity or the
individual. Contrast to earlier research, Lepper and Henderlong (2000) suggest intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation can occur at the same time and are not necessarily shared.

31

Newer perspectives on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would not lend researchers to
ask whether an extrinsic motivator enhances or undermines intrinsic motivation, but
rather focuses on how extrinsic motivators affect the individuals’ intrinsic or extrinsic
motivation (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). Further research needs to focus on the
nature of the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for a given activity
and given individual, rather than assuming a relationship (Harackiewicz & Sansone,
2000)
Summary of Self-Determination Theory

SDT focuses on the human organism and social contexts that either support or
hinder one’s attempt to integrate their experiences into a coherent sense of self. The basic
psychological needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy deﬁne the social
contextual events supporting or undermining one’s motivation, performance and well-
being (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Overall, SDT was used as the foundational theory in this
study to formalize how youth motivation and engagement are examined based on
motivation and the continuum of motivation to engagement.

Motivation & Engagement - Linkages

Studies conclude youth may be motivated and engaged for multiple reasons,
including fun and enjoyment, wanting to learn, improving skills, and applicability
(Fredericks, et al., 2002; Ferrari, Anderson-Butcher, & Jesseson, 2003). Youth gain many
developmental beneﬁts from involvement in organized youth programs (Larson, 2000;
Marczak, Dworkin, Skuza, & Beyer, 2006). Such developments include: social skills
(Bartko, 2005; Fredericks et al., 2002; Quinn, 1999), initiative and teamwork (Larson,

Hansen, & Walker, 2005), and increased educational attainment and achievement

32

(Mahoney et al., 2005; Bartko, 2005; Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos, 2000; Fredericks et al.,
2002). Pancer et al., (n.d.) stated youth engagement and participation can have a
profound impact on almost every aspect of youth development. They conclude that this
impact can signiﬁcantly change the environments in which youth live, work, and learn.

Engagement in after-school and community activities is important because of the
relative disengagement students have while at school or at home (Csikszentrnihalyi &
Larson, 1984). By replacing time youth spend in unstructured activities with activities
such as those provided after school or with the community, students’ opportunities to
simultaneously achieve autonomy, competence and relatedness are enhanced (Shernoff & I
Vandell, 2007). These are suggested as the three most important motivational forces
according to a number of developmental psychologists (Eccles, 1999; Ryan & Deci,
2000).

Pearce and Larson (2006) reported youth do not have to enter programs already
motivated in order to become engaged. As concluded in the “Youth Action” study in
which students were required to participate, students can participate in programs out of
requirement and then become intrinsically motivated and engaged to participate beyond
their service requirements.

Enjoyment and Support

Youth engage in activities for the perceived fun and enjoyment they offer. In a
study of urban African American youth participating in programs at the YMCA or Boys
and Girls Clubs, youth identiﬁed “fun” most often as the motivation for their
participation (Borden et al., 2005). Fredericks et al., (2002) questioned why students

engage in arts and athletics programs and found a common reason for participation was

33

enjoyment. Further probing resulted in youth ﬁnding the activity enjoyable because they
were good at it and it was an opportunity to see friends. Elsewhere it was reported that
youth involved since an early age in an activity found it enjoyable and continued
participation because they were good at it (Marczak et al., 2006).

Jones and Hill (2003) focused on patterns of commitment for high school students
involved in community service, socializing with peers played a key role in student
participation. They found if friends were involved in service then these students were
more likely to participate. Overall, community service became a way of having fun and
spending time with friends (Jones & Hill, 2003). One reason youth participate in
voluntary after-school activities is to fulﬁll their social goals (Fredricks, et al., 2002;
Luken, 2002). When asked what they wanted out of programming, youth reported the
following: ( 1) opportunity for physical activity, (2) participate in recreational activities
and (3) the chance to socialize with friends more (Marczak et al., 2006).

Peer support has been identiﬁed as a signiﬁcant factor in the engagement process
(Bartko, 2005). When youth join new programs their social network usually extends to
those who are participating in the activity they have joined (Dworkin, Larson, & Hansen,
2003). Engagement may result when youth are offered opportunity to grow individually
through meaningful interaction with others (Pete, 2004; Luken, 2002). Yet, engagement
in a particular activity usually results when youth feel a sense of belonging (Bartko,
2005; Pete, 2004). Patrick et al., (1999) found over half of participants have made new
friends as a result of joining a program. Failure to feel accepted by peers or feel a sense
of belonging was cited as a source of non-participation for middle school children

(Marczak et al., 2006).

34

Pearce & Larson (2006) concluded the inﬂuence of peers as important when
researching motivation and engagement in a service-learning program. Peers provided a
friendly and welcoming atmosphere. Talking with peers and sharing experiences
increased commitment to the program, and interaction among the youth made their work
more enjoyable (Pearce & Larson, 2006). Youth indicated the welcoming atmosphere
amongst was a factor for continued participation beyond the required service. On the
contrary, Ferrari & Turner (2006), found a limited number of participants engaged in an
after-school 4-H program because of friends. Yet, research does reveal peers have an
inﬂuence on each other’s decisions to continue participation and engagement in
organized activities (Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Fredericks, et al., 2003; Pearce &
Larson, 2006). As illustrated, adolescents are motivated by perceived competence and a
need to feel socially accepted. Forming and maintaining social relationships with friends
is a signiﬁcant motivational goal and engagement factor for most youth involved in
organized activities (Patrick, et al., 1999).

Parental Role

Pancer & Pratt (1999) stated the social settings provided by family and peers are
key elements in engaging youth in community life. Those youth who know activities are
important to parents are more likely to develop and potentially maintain interest (Fletcher
et al., 2000). Youth and parents reported parents inﬂuenced their child’s decision in
program participation. Often students participate in programs their parents participated in
as a youth or programs parents encourage them to join (Marczak et al., 2006).
Additionally, if parents are not engaged in community activities reinforcement of their

children’s’ involvement is most consequential and may lead to disengagement by youth

35

(Fletcher et al., 2000). Overall, parents contribute signiﬁcantly to discouraging or
encouraging participation in youth programs (Marczak et al., 2006).
Youth-A dult Relationships

Ryan & Deci (2003) suggest adults who are over controlling undermine
motivation and learning. Adults are most effective when they support youth ownership
and agents of their own actions. Adults in youths’ lives should provide structure,
challenge and support (Eccles et al., 1998). Dworkin et al. (2003) suggest leaders should
not teach students but rather help students teach themselves. In the youth development
ﬁeld, this is known as “youth empowerment.” A study was conducted to identify what
activities help youth develop — the study was recounted by youth. In almost all situations,
students’ portrayed themselves as their own development agents. They described
processes derived from their own thoughts and choosing from what adults tell them
(Dworkin et al., 2003).

Healthy, caring and respectful relationships between adults and youth are
imperative for sustained involvement and activity success (Walker, 2006; Mahoney &
Cairns, 1997; Bartko, 2005). Youth activity leaders are often signiﬁcant when youth are
asked about adults who are inﬂuential in their lives (Blyth, Hill, & Thiel, 1982). In a
study conducted on girls participating in Girls Inc. (a program promoting positive
development of girls) researchers found the most cited response for participating was the
opportunity to learn new things and interact with caring adults (Borden et al., 2005).
Marczak et al. (2006) stated youth want to connect with adults who share similar interests

and can build positive relationships with involved youth.

36

Authentic learning and engagement happens when youth are treated respectfully
by adults and are given an appropriate amount of support and freedom to make decisions
(Joselowsky, 2007; Luken, 2002). Larson (2006) found in situations where adult advisers
or leaders of high school programs took control of activities youth were less likely to feel
ownership, and thus youth felt less motivated and disengaged from the activity.
Conversely, when adults left activities totally up to the youth, work was often not
completed or off task, which led to declining motivation and investment in the
assignment (Larson, Hansen, & Walker, 2005).

Youth and adult driven models offer a context in which to perceive the role each
can take in a community-based program. The adult-driven model focuses on the approach
adults “know best” and adults offer greater knowledge and experience to program
activities. Youth-driven model refers to an approach taking the form of a partnership in
which youth and adults contribute, but youth perceive ownership and decision making
rights (Carlson, 1998; Larson, Walker, & Pearce, 2005). Carlson states youth learn by
helping to choose projects, share in discussions, being active in the group, and deciding
on the evaluation standards.

Although each program has a different context and different objectives, a study
was conducted analyzing the youth-driven vs. adult-driven model, using four programs.
Larson et al. (2005) found participants in the FFA group and “Youth Action” perceived
activities they planned as their own and were highly invested in work outcomes. Youth
reported positive experiences they encountered leﬁ them more empowered, competent
and motivated to strive towards distant goals. Skills learned through participation carried

over into other parts of their lives. The adult-driven model was utilized with two groups

37

in which adults were able to create specially designed learning experiences for e youth
and often created student-centered learning experiences, yet remained in control of
activities. Larson et al. (2005) concluded the clearest liability in the adult-driven model
was the threat of adults’ control undermining youths’ ownership.

Pearce and Larson (2006) found leader support was an important part of
motivating and then engaging youth in programs. Leaders fostered a welcoming group
climate, directed youths’ attention, challenged youth and offered support. These different
mechanisms appeared inﬂuential at the different engagement processes encountered by
youth (Pearce & Larson, 2006). Saito (2006) reported young people want to be treated
with respect by staff and other participants and viewed as community resources. Shemoff
and Vandell (2007) found middle school children were most motivated when activities
offered social structure and were performed with peers and adults.

The challenge faced by adults is trying to allow youth ownership while
maintaining focus and order in program activities (Larson, 2006). Creating activities and
working together to share leadership responsibilities encourages youth involvement and
utilization of their talents (Walker, 2006). Engagement is developmental — for youth and
adults —- continuous skill development for all involved is essential in creating and
sustaining youth-adult partnerships (J oselowsky, 2007).

Perceived Importance & Helping Others

Youth are motivated by programs perceived as important to future and distant
goals or for other reasons found personally valuable (Fredericks et al., 2002). Youth are
engaged in programs allowing for expanding opportunities. Such programs permit youth

to join and stay for several years because of the chance for learning and leadership

38

(Walker, 2006). Borden et al., (2005) found students were interested in programs that are
more than just fun. Students are looking for organized programs that have high-quality
staff and offer skill development opportunities preparing them for adulthood. Further,
youth want to participate in authentic programs offering quality learning (Walker, 2006;
Eyler, 2002).

Service-learning researchers found service initiatives that bring youth into contact
with the needy are helpful in civic engagement development (Youniss & Yates, 1997;
McLellan & Youniss, 2003). Meaningful roles and power to make a difference can help
youth develop a sense of efﬁcacy and help them realize the impact they can have while
helping others (Joselowsky, 2007). Kraft (1996) suggests youth involved in communities
assist community members resulting in the attitudes of the youth signiﬁcantly changing
in the process of helping others. In a study conducted by Serow (1991) on college
students’ motivation for participating in community service programs, 80 percent of
respondents indicated a sense of satisfaction from helping others as a decision factor in
their participation. Additionally, 54 percent of students reported feeling a duty to correct
societal problems. Raskoff and Sundeen (1999) reported 24 percent of students were self-
motivated for reasons such as helping others in their study on community service
programs in various high schools. These factors indicate altruism; motivation is
concerned with the ultimate goal of helping or increasing the welfare of one of more
individuals (Batson, 1994). Conversely, Serow, Ciechalski, and Daye (1990) suggest that
for most people, the costs of undertaking good deeds (time, energy, lost opportunities)

must be offset by rewards derived directly or indirectly from the activity. Although, the

39

researchers further describe the possibility that engagement in helping behavior can in
itself be enticing and motive for particiapiton in community service.
Challenges & Skills

Matching skills with challenges are an important part of creating intrinsic
motivation and enjoyment (Csikzentrnihalyi, 1990). Challenges must feel personally
meaningful for youth to experience high levels of motivation and engagement. Pearce
and Larson (2006) found when youth were challenged by goals set and supported by
leaders in meeting these goals, they experienced enjoyment. The leader helped with this
“channel of engagement” allowing a more sustained experience than if youth were
challenged without support.

Engagement in activities often occurs when opportunities are stimulating and
offer challenging experiences. Youth want to participate in programs helping them
improve their skill set (Raskoff & Sundeen, 1999) and engage them cognitively (Bartko,
2005). Bartko found mastering skills and the excitement that accompanies this process
also relate to positive engagement. Programs designed to foster youth development build
on youths’ strengths, while providing ongoing support and challenging opportunities to
meet their needs (Quinn, 1999). Further, engagement in challenging extra curricular
activities is associated with less delinquent behavior and less chance of dropping out of
school, especially among high-risk youth (Mahoney et al., 2005; McNeal, 1995; Vandell,
et al., 2005; The City of Calgary, 2004).

Voluntary service allows opportunities for youth that may not be readily available
in other contexts of their lives and represents a way youth can acquire skills pertaining to

interpersonal relationships, time management and career options (Raskoff & Sundeen,

40

1999; Serow et al., 1990). Raskoff & Sundeen (1999) stated youth seek to gain valuable
career experience as a major factor determining satisfaction with service learning
opportunities. Lauver & Little (2005) also found teens desire opportunities to develop
marketable skills, learn about careers and make community contributions. It is evident by
empirical studies completed that youth participate in activities for more than fun and
enjoyment. They look for ways to assist communities while beneﬁting their future
through these helping efforts.
Barriers to Participation

Although there are great beneﬁts for youth to participate is extra-curricular
programs and community based activities, many youth do not take advantage or do not
have opportunity to participate in such programs. In many communities, there are not
formal programs organized (opportunity—depleted communities); however, even in some
communities where there is some level of programming, many youth do not participate in
these growth enhancing experiences (Saito, 2006).

Lauver, Little and Weiss (2004) suggested ﬁve key barriers to youth participation;
(I) desire to relax and spend time with friends, (2) desire or need to work, (3) family
responsibilities, (4) boredom or disinterest, and (5) transportation. Saito (2006) reported
similar barriers to participation; (1) restricted access, including cost and transportation,
(2) youth feel unwelcome by other participants or adult leader, (3) lack of knowledge
about what is available to them, and (4) the program is run poorly. It has been found
youth disengage in activities because they are distracted by the pressures demanding the
majority of time throughout the day (Yeung, 2007). The Centre of Excellence for Youth

Engagement (2004) investigated what prevents youth from becoming involved and or

41

staying engaged by categorizing barriers. The three categories include: (1) personal
barriers, (2) school/family/organizational barriers, and (3) community/societal barriers.
With apparent beneﬁts youth gain by participating in community-based activities,
barriers hinder these possible advantages. By better understanding barriers, youth
programmers have the ability to attract and sustain meaningful engagement over time for
young people (Weiss et al., 2005).
Conclusion

Although commonly used interchangeably, motivation and engagement are
different; however, their common similarities and natural linkages drove the study to
integrate the concepts together. Motivational theory occupies much of the cited research.
However, studies on extra-curricular programs, community activities and youth
initiatives are lacking. Student engagement in an academic setting has also been highly
published; yet, youth engagement in non-formal settings is deﬁcient (Thomas, 2007).
Pearce and Larson (2006) suggested the self-determination theory provides a useful
framework for thinking about how youth are motivated and then engaged in an activity
and how this transformation occurs. Self-determination theory suggests motivation can be
understood in terms of a continuum from amotivation to extrinsic motivation to intrinsic
motivation, with degrees along this continuum representing greater personal engagement.

Having deﬁned engagement and motivation and with the use of self-determination
theory, one can understand the use of it as the foundational theory. From extrinsic to
intrinsic factors, youth chalk their participation up to different levels of motivational
factors. By tradition, youth join after-school activities or community programs for a

multitude of reasons. Attendance and engagement vary amongst activities and

42

participants. Within the motivation to engagement continuum, the study gives reason to
explore factors inﬂuencing student decisions to engage or disengage in a community-

based initiative.

43

3. METHODS
The methods section of the narrative outlines the research design and describes
the procedures followed. It further examines the research participants and the data
collection instruments used. The study design, in particular the interviews, were
conducted to answer each proposed research question. The observations conducted
helped the researcher understand each site and provide opportunity for interaction with
participating students. This allowed the researcher to gain a better perspective of youths’
reasons for participation. Finally, the chapter describes how data was analyzed and
provides a summary.
Overview
Four research questions were derived to examine youth motivation and

engagement in YFSP. The following research questions guided study design and data
collection.

1. What initially motivated youth to join the farm stand project?

2. What components of the project did the youth ﬁnd most enjoyable?

3. What factors inﬂuenced sustained engagement in the project?

4. What barriers did youth face preventing continued participation in the

project?

The qualitative study was exploratory in nature; relying on interviews and observations.
Because of the nature of the study, qualitative research was used to better understand the
experiences and nature of the persons participating in the Youth Farm Stand Project
(YFSP). According to Strauss & Corbin (1990) qualitative research allows participant

experiences to emerge by interacting with the researcher. Additionally, qualitative

44

 

research has an inherent openness and ﬂexibility allowing modiﬁcation to the design and
focus during the research to understand new relationships and discoveries (Maxwell,
2005). As will be illustrated, the study adapted to the circumstances that arose and the
methodology evolved over the course of the research.
Background to Study

Description of Youth Farm Stand Project

YFSP is a community-based initiative designed to connect youth with E
communities and food systems. The program was developed by the CS Mott Group for

Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University. This group focuses on research

 

and outreach surrounding community-based food systems and sustainable practices.

I!‘

YFSP is one of many projects the CS. Mott Group organizes surrounding local food
systems work. YFSP participants ranged from ages 11-19 years old with multiple levels
of agriculture experience. The program attracted 70 youth and reached 2,000 community
members and food stamp eligible participants through increased access to fresh fruits and
vegetables and nutrition information.

Study Sites

In 2006—07 six YFSP community sites participated in Michigan’s Lower
Peninsula. Research activities covered a lO-month period from January to October,
2007. Work at Michigan sites ranged from agri-science students independently gardening
at home to adjudicated youth gardening at their program center. The study included ﬁve
sites; one site was excluded because it was not actively participating at project onset.
Table 3.1 provides an overview of each study site, including a project description,

illustrating site diversity.

45

Table 3.1

Description of sites and youth participants.

 

Site Description

 

Applegate — Agriculture science education Offered through FF A chapter and agri-
program science classes

Bell — Adjudicated youth program Offered to students in the program

Coldwater — Alternative education and Offered through an after school 4-H

Extension program
Duffy — Middle school Offered as an after school program
Elgin — Agriculture Charter school Offered as a club at school

TV

‘_. '.. I an

 

 

Each community site was different and encompassed different strategies and
provided different learning opportunities. Farm stand location in proximity to youths’
homes varied across participants. Most sites had a central gardening location and were
relative to the school or host program location.

Applegate YFSP involved FFA students in the agriscience program at Applegate

High School. The project’s goal was to teach students skills in entrepreneurship,

sustainable agriculture, and hands-on skills in production and marketing of local produce.

As described by their goals, participants strived to educate other students and consumers
about producing and choosing healthy foods. This was accomplished through mentoring
of student growers as they worked to grow fresh produce in home gardens. The approach

Applegate YFSP took was unique as the project was based on student home gardens.

46

Bell program was an alternative high school serving at-risk youth. Youth have
been ordered by the Probate Court and remain in the Bell program for one year. Youth
ranged from 14-17 years old. Because of the nature of the program, participants in YFSP
continually changed from project inception. The overall goal was to increase nutrition
knowledge among students, increase entrepreneurial knowledge and experience among
students, increase connection between adjudicated youth and the community, increase
understanding by students of agri-business related career options, and make the project
sustainable.

Coldwater site partnered with an alternative education high school for YF SP. The
project’s purpose, in part, was to connect at-risk youth with the project to expose them to
an experience in an academic and personal sense. The goal of YFSP was to provide a
developmental experience related to establishing a business and providing educational
lessons focused on healthy eating. The project established a viable market niche in the
community via a farm stand. Students ranged in age from 16-19. Target population
included students attending the alternative high school.

Duffy Middle School is located in a low income area; and serves 6th-8th grade
students. The goal of YFSP was to provide fresh produce to the school community and
local residents while providing students opportunity to learn entrepreneurial skills and
provide an earning opportunity. The mission was accomplished by establishing a student
farm market, a special event in the school to promote the project and regular sessions on
nutrition and cooking. Thirteen youth participants took part in YFSP at Duffy Middle

SchooL

47

 

Elgin YFSP integrated the project into school programming. Students involved
were sophomores at Elgin Charter School. The objectives were to reach low-income
communities with fresh food and to educate them about the beneﬁts of fresh produce.
Beneﬁts of eating fresh produce were discussed with the youth, as well as business basics
about pricing food to sell for a proﬁt. The importance of buying local was also discussed.

Data Collection

Qualitative research focuses on speciﬁc situations and allows the study to
facilitate issues in depth and detail (Patton, 2002). The intent of the study was not to
compare individual youth or groups, but rather to look at the motivation and engagement
of youth in the farm stand project from an overall program perspective.

Qualitative interviews are detailed allowing the interviewer to understand
experiences and reconstruct events in which they did not participate (Rubin & Rubin,
2005). By asking participants open-ended questions and giving them opportunity to
reconstruct events and experiences, interviews provided rich data and informed the
overall research questions. Qualitative research design allows data collection without
following predetermined data analysis categories (Patton, 2002); data emerged and
subsequent data collections were crafted meeting research study needs.

Study Design

The study consisted of qualitative interviews and observations. Each data
collection evolved from subsequent ﬁndings allowing themes to emerge. The youth
interviewed were important to study design. They provided ﬁrst-hand data (Rubin &
Rubin, 2005) about why they joined YFSP and what ultimately motivated and engaged

them. Although students interviewed were part of the core group, it was useful to

48

 

question them about the overall project, reﬂecting on different aspects of YFSP. During
observations, all students present at each of the sites were observed and included in the
study data. Further, coordinators provided general statements about youth involved;
including students other than those interviewed. All youth were ﬁrst-time participants.
The ﬁrst student interviews focused on answering research question #1 pertaining
to initial motivation. Second student interviews helped answer research questions #2 and
#3, enjoyable project aspects and sustained engagement. Coordinator interviews guided I
results for research question #4 examining participation barriers. Observations taken
complimented the study and provided additional data in answering the research questions.

The study consisted of 33 formal data collections - 28 interviews and ﬁve observations.

 

Table 3.2 provides a participant description and a purpose for each data collection.

Table 3.2

Illustration of information about data collection subjects and purpose/rationale of each

 

 

collection

Method Participant Description Purpose
Interview #1 Interview conducted with a YFSP To explore the factors that
Students (15) participant — selected by inﬂuenced the student to initiate

coordinator. their involvement in the farm
stand project. Further the
interview focused on the students’
involvement and experience thus

far in the project

49

Table 3.2 (con’t)
Interview #2 Interview conducted with same

Students (8) individual as ﬁrst interview.

Observations Participants of YFSP —
(5) participating in the project during

the observation.

Interview — Coordinators of YFSP —

Coordinators (5) coordinating the project and
interacting with the youth
participants during the course of

the program.

To understand the change in
motivation and engagement from
the onset of participation in
YFSP. Further, to gain awareness
of the outcomes of the project and
the impact on individual students.
To understand the background
and objectives of the farm stand
project and observe the culture of
the gatherings. Understand the
work completed by the youth
while working toward their
project goals.

To understand why some youth
did not complete YFSP. Further,
understand the motivation and
engagement of the youth to stay
in the project, as communicated

and seen by the coordinators.

 

 

50

Sampling

The study sample included youth and coordinators participating in YFSP at ﬁve
sites in Michigan. The sample was limited to YFSP participants because of the nature of
the questions and the study’s intended focus on the farm stand project. The youth
included middle school, high school, and alternative high school aged students. The
youth were selected based on their initial involvement with the farm stand program —
more precisely the youth who showed an interest in the program, as noted by their
respective coordinators. Initial involvement was deﬁned by participating in YFSP since
starting in the community. For most students this meant since winter 2006. Included in
the sample were site coordinators because of their involvement with youth. Coordinator
perceptions were accounted for at project end.

Each coordinator selected three youth participants for the ﬁrst interviews, totaling
a sample size of 15 students. The researcher asked each coordinator to select youth
actively involved in YF SP from the program’s start. Purposeful sampling was used to
identify and select informants for the interviews; this type of sampling is advocated when
information-rich sources are sought (Patton, 2002). Since research focused on what
motivated and engaged youth participants, youth participating in YFSP were selected.
Anticipating youth would provide rich data guided the study design and led the
researcher to recruit study participants actively involved in YFSP. For the second
interview, it was not possible to interview the same 15 students, as some were no longer
in contact with coordinators or no longer part of YFSP at the respective sites. The
researcher made effort to contact those youth no longer afﬁliated with YFSP by making

telephone calls and sending emails with contact information provided by the youth

51

 

through ﬁrst interviews. Contact with these seven youth was not successful. Eight
students were interviewed a second time at the end of their participation.

Table 3.3 illustrates the ﬁve sites and the interviewed participants. Pseudonyms
protect participant identities. Although sites and participants were not compared in the
study, it is important to note differences and context in which farm stand projects were
offered. Each was unique and emphasized different program aspects. Although not a
comparative study, to better interpret and analyze results it is helpful to note program

sites and describe participant focus.

Table 3.3

Youth and coordinators participating in interviews.

 

 

Affiliated Site Student Interview 1 Interview 2 Coordinator
Applegate Alex X X

Jamie X X

Jesse X

Coordinator A X
Bell Kelly X

Jordan X

Chris X

Coordinator B X
Coldwater Taylor X

Bailey X

Shannon X

Coordinator C X
Duffy Corey X X

Sam X X

Charlie X X

Coordinator D X

52

Table 3.3 (con’t)

Elgin Morgan X X
Cameron X X
Lee X X
Coordinator E X

 

Data Collection Techniques

By asking participants open-ended questions and giving them opportunity to
reconstruct events and experiences, interviews provided data and informed the research
questions. To understand why students did not complete the project, and to gain insight
into coordinator perceptions of youth motivation and engagement, the ﬁve coordinators
were interviewed in September. Coordinators provided information as to why the initially
interviewed students did not complete the project. Although this was not part of the initial
research design, qualitative research allows for unstructured approaches, allowing
researchers to focus on particular trends and tailor methods to allow data to emerge
(Maxwell, 2005).

Interviews & Observations

Interviews were focused and semi-structured. Focused interviews provide depth
and personal context (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1990). To gain more insight into
participant responses, the researcher used follow-up questions and probes. Interview
guides were developed and used to facilitate discussions; however, the interviewer
allowed data to emerge and subsequently followed-up on relevant topics (Rubin & Rubin,
2005). Interview guides were developed and are found in Appendices A-C. Guides were
developed and followed during ﬁrst and second student interviews and coordinator

interviews. The researcher’s major professor and two other colleagues checked interview

53

questions for content and validity before approving guides. The ﬁrst interview was
piloted with two students participating in YFSP and then modiﬁed accordingly for
remaining interviews.

Completing interviews and scripting observations allowed the researcher to ﬁrst
explore why youth joined the project and follow up on emerging themes in subsequent
data collection. Conducting scripting observations provided opportunities to understand
project culture, interactions amongst participants, and overall project objectives. F

Procedures Used

Parental/ guardian consent forms were required for youth to participate in

interviews. The Michigan State University Institutional Review Board approved consent

 

I' i.
1

forms. The researcher notiﬁed interviewees about the conﬁdentiality of responses and
study purposes. They also explained through the consent form before the formal
interview began. At the beginning of each interview, the researcher outlined interview
procedures and reassured participants of anonymity. It was also indicated to participants
that if at any time they were not comfortable answering a question they could pass.

The researcher arranged interviews, via telephone calls, with coordinators for all
data collections. These telephone calls were not blind calls as the researcher had prior
affiliation with coordinators through other farm stand project interactions. Held
individually by the same interviewer, interviews were in-depth and lasted approximately
15 to 30 minutes. Conducted in person, they were audio recorded and transcribed by the
researcher. Observations lasted on average one-hour in length. Observations were
participatory as the researcher participated in YFSP activities, meetings, or marketing

events. Data was collected at various sites— either at schools or community locations.

54

Depending on the activity, some interviews were conducted indoors while others were
conducted outdoors.
Data Analysis

Data analysis included transcribing, coding, and documenting emergent themes
from interviews and observations. Interviews were transcribed as verbatim and extensive
notes were taken during observations. Interviews and observations were the basis for
analysis and subsequent study results.

Analyzing the data consisted of three methods. To aid in analysis, qualitative data
analysis software, NVivo 7 was used. Upon completion of ﬁrst interviews a coding
scheme was developed as a starting point in determining emerging themes. Codes were
modiﬁed, deleted and added as research progressed. Following ﬁrst round interviews,
observations were conducted and coded. However, after coding the data the scheme was
revised to clarify some codes and make them more related to motivation and engagement.
After completing second round interviews with students, data was recoded identifying
examples to distinguish when codes were applicable and not applicable. Interviews with
coordinators were coded using already established student interview and observation
codes. Additional codes were developed to better adhere to coordinator comments.
Coding and re-coding grouped data themes became apparent and easily recognized when
codes grouped together. By beginning with coding it simpliﬁed analysis allowing the
researcher to eliminate narrative not related or connected to research questions.

Codes were grouped and categorized in accordance to which research question
they identiﬁed with. Codes were reviewed by two colleagues and checked for clarity and

validity. From this categorization, themes were developed and sub-themes emerged from

55

main themes of each research question. Reviewing coding reports allowed supporting text
to emerge and highlight research question results. More than one code may be affiliated
with one of the themes or sub-themes. Although some codes were not directly linked to
motivation, they were developed to identify supporting or relevant information. For a
complete list of codes and how they relate to themes later discussed in the results, refer to
Appendix D.

As a second step of analysis, major themes and sub-themes corresponding with
each research question were created. Once themes were created the researcher found
narrative supporting each sub-theme. For each emergent theme a memo was created
encompassing themes and their sub-themes as a way to categorize and start interpreting
data. For each theme a summary statement was written about information gathered.

After completing memos, clustered matrices were created to make connections
and summarize data collections. Each clustered matrix summarized an emergent theme.
For example, ‘something to do’ was noted through data collections. A summary
statement derived from analyzing the theme, ‘something to do’ for each round of data
collection (three interviews and one observation) was charted in a matrix and used to
report results. Each round of data collection is interpreted by ﬁrst student interviews (15),
second student interviews (8), coordinator interviews (5) and observations (5). Once
matrices were completed, the researcher analyzed them ensuring interpretation accuracy.
An example of the matrix can be found in the Appendix E.

The researcher re-read the data collections in their entirety making certain themes
and sub-themes for each research question were still relevant. While reading transcripts

and expanded notes, they gathered important narrative evidence that would aid in writing

56

results and discussion. Speciﬁc examples were noted as possible quotes to use when
discussing results. The coded data was interpreted and categorized under each research
question using the derived themes. The results and discussion were written from the

collected and analyzed data.

57

4. RESULTS

Results are presented reﬂecting the four research questions. Data was coded,
analyzed and grouped providing interpretive results. Codes pertaining or connecting to
each question make up results presented in this section. Not every motivating or engaging
factor is listed; however, results reported reﬂect comments of most interviewed
individuals. When referring to most students, more than 50% of respondents made an
indication of the point in question. Beyond interviewed youth and coordinators, results
also synthesize data collected by the researcher during observations. Data collected also
reﬂects other youth participants taking part in YFSP at the respective study sites. To
provide clarity in results, Table 4.1 depicts students and coordinators involved in the

interview process.

Table 4.1

Students and coordinators involved in data collection.

 

Afﬁliated Site Student Interview 1 Interview 2 Coordinator

Applegate Alex X X

Jamie X X

Jesse X

Coordinator A X
Bell Kelly X

Jordan X

Chris X

Coordinator B X
Coldwater Taylor X

Bmky X

Shannon X

Coordinator C X

58

Table 4.1 (con’t)

 

Duffy Corey X X

Sam X X

Charlie X X

Coordinator D X
El gin Morgan X X

Cameron X X

Lee X X

Coordinator E X

 

The following synopsis is provided to better understand the overall project and the
success and obstacles each site faced at the garden locations and at their marketing outlet.
This section of the results compliments the research questions and provides an overview
of some pertinent background information on each farm stand project. This synopsis is
meant to attribute to the overall research completed on the project, some of which may
have inﬂuenced motivation and engagement.

The Applegate farm stand was open from June thru September on Wednesday
evenings and Saturday mornings. It was located in a vacant lot in downtown Applegate.
Articles were published in the local newspaper and ﬂyers were hung in community
businesses to promote the farm stand. The approach Applegate YFSP took was unique to
the other projects in that students grew produce at home gardens. Garden plots ranged
from small raised beds to a one-acre plot. Other students in agriscience classes
contributed to the project by building the actual farm stand in mechanics class and
completing the business plan in the agri-business class. The partnerships allowed for

more students to be involved in the project, in an indirect but important way.

59

Bell participants were adjudicated youth and attended alternative high school
where the YFSP was located. Participation was voluntary but occurred during regular
school programming hours. Youth had opportunity to complete the business plan, design
and plant the garden and work at the farm stand as part of their regular school day. Bell
serves 600 people with disabilities and other barriers to employment at the plant where
the farm stand was located. Of the 600 people, many participants are low income and
have limited access to fresh ﬁ'uits and vegetables. Garden plots were made available to
the CYS by Peckham and utilized to grow produce and ﬂowers to sell at the farm stand.
The farm stand began operation in August and the students’ hosted a salsa tasting party
for the clients at Peckham as a way to kick-off the harvest season.

The Coldwater project established a viable market niche in the community via a
farm stand. All produce sold at the stand was grown by the youth at the site where it was
sold. Key partnerships were developed with the Public Schools and the County Sheriff’s
Department Community Corrections unit, as they provided the land to grow the produce.
The farm stand site was in the countryside requiring the coordinator to provide
transportation to participating youth. The Coldwater site experienced predator problems;
half way through the season a severe problem with deer resulted and a large portion of
the produce was destroyed. Sales from the farm stand did not exceed $500. Although
greater sales were anticipated, the coordinators are conﬁdent with changes, the project
can be much more proﬁtable in future years.

The YFSP started at Duffy in October and ﬁnished in September, making it the
only project to run the entire year. The target population was the school community and

nearby residents. Duffy reached their target population through school announcements,

60

signage, ﬂyers distributed through the mail and large banners in front of the school. Two
cooking demonstrations were conducted at the school involving parents. The coordinator
felt the project was somewhat successful in reaching the target population; however, an
increase in marketing would have brought more customers to the stand. A small garden
plot at the school allowed youth to garden. However, the majority of their farm stand
produce was procured from outside sources. Over 1000 pounds of fresh produce was
given away to food stamp eligible community members. This was a result of giving away
20 fruit baskets and the leftover produce from the farm stand to the families of the
involved youth.

The students at El gin grew produce in two large raised beds and sold it at the
farmers market on a few occasions, however, they learned it was not economical to buy
and re-sell produce and the market was not as busy as they had hoped. Success was
measured by talking to one person per market day about the beneﬁts of eating fresh
produce. At weekly meetings throughout the summer moths the beneﬁts of eating fresh
produce were discussed with the youth, as well as business basics about pricing food to
sell and make a proﬁt. The importance of buying local was also discussed with the
participating youth. The proﬁt made ($250) was put towards next years’ project. The
coordinator expressed the need for a better outlet to sell the produce and connect with
local producers to make the project more successful.

Question 1: Reasons youth initially joined YFSP

The ﬁrst question examined why youth initially joined the farm stand project. The

description of the project, as they understood from leaders inﬂuenced their decision to

join. Because of the projects’ uniqueness, each leader emphasized different parts when

61

 

coordinating and recruiting youth. After completing the ﬁrst interviews with students the

researcher outlined the four themes that emerged from the data collections and is the

basis of the results from question one, see Figure 4.1.

 

Motivation to
Join YFSP

 

 

_r_ _ ........... l .......... . . .I_ . . .,.... ..............I.
I : K 5 Future
I Social I Activities 5 iRelationships ' E Ambitions &
' E Skills

._J — —/ . ........... I ........... . — ].-— -
r—Something l 5- Chance to r-_Friends ‘

to do : earn money 5 I- Family '
c Have fun I 5- Gardening 3

College
Skills

.IIIIIIIIII.
I I

O

——_J I 00000000000000000 III. II—II—I

Figure 4.1. Conceptual framework of why youth joined the farm stand project.
Social: Something to Do

For many youth, interest in joining the farm stand project stemmed from its

0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
—
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

O

.IIIIIIIIII.

O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0

.II IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I.

uniqueness and offered something to do. Many youth expressed they were not involved in

any other activities and did not have after school commitments. Youth simply said it was

something to do; Jordan mentioned, “I don’t really do anything else so I just ﬁgured I do

something with my time.” This trend continued across ﬁve sites, and mentioned by at

least one participant at each site.

[Taylorz] Yeah it was mainly just being outside, working, having something to do.
I mean because I don’t do any sports, at least at Coldwater cause I can’t run cross

country or swim so. I didn’t ﬁnd softball or basketball attractive so I wanted
something to do and I like ﬂowers and planting and organic stuff to eat

[Jessez] Being busy and always having something to do, I wasted my whole
summer last year and I thought about that this year and I’m not wasting my

62

summer sitting on the couch doing nothing, I’m going to do something, so now
I’ve got something to do

For some youth it was a project after school and that meant they did not have to go home,
Sam said: “it’s just something to do cause I don’t really like going home and I like
keeping myself busy.”

[Charliez] After Sam and Corey told me about it, like the details, it kinda got

interesting so I just decided to go, it was kind of on a whim, I was just like ok I

don’t want to go home, so I just went, it was something to do
Although youth mentioned YFSP as something to do, results highlight other reasons for
participation.

Social: Having Fun

A couple students stated they joined the farm stand project because they perceived
it as something fun. Cameron expressed, “I thought it would be fun and exciting so I just
joined.” Being outdoors and having fun was cited by a number of youth participants as an
appealing aspect of the project. Chris mentioned, “it just sounded like fun learning how to
do a business plan and learning how to budget and grow stuff and all that, it just sounded
kinda fun.” Chris also stated it sounded fun and was a project to keep her out of trouble.
Corey said, “it sounded kinda fun and I didn’t really have a busy schedule and it was
kinda the beginning of the year and I didn’t really do anything last year.” Almost every
youth respondent indicated some project aspect to be perceived as interesting or fun.

Elgin site operated their farm stand during school hours and this appealed as a fun
part of the day.

[Morganz] the fact that we got to get like outside because Elgin is already like a

very different environment then most high schools and then in addition we get to

go outside and plant and stuff and make money doing it, we’re like the only club
here that get to actually do that, I thought that was fun and interesting too

63

Applegate site also incorporated youth farm stand programming into regular class hours,
giving participating students a different learning opportunity and one appealing to the
students.

[Jamiez] The opportunity to work with like help out my fellow students to take the

produce to other farmers markets and the chance to build the actual farm stand in

this class, my ﬁrst hour class, ag mech tech, just sounded like a lot of fun really
Even though not all youth fully understood what the farm stand project was about when
they joined, they perceived the project to be fun.

Activities: Chance to earn money

The farm stand project offers incentive to earn money. After the project was
described and the researcher saw a trend in motives for participation, it was concluded
YFSP offered students a summer job experience and one youth seen as motivation for
participating. Potential to make a proﬁt while participating in YFSP was a motive for
some students; however, throughout interviews it became apparent there were additional
reasons to join and they did not solely join because of earning potential. Making money
was promoted by a couple sites as a way to recruit students into the project and
coordinators thought it was a main selling feature and thought of motive to encourage
participation.

[Morgan:] Well the ﬁrst thing that really caught my mind was that we get paid to

do it like personally, the money’s not going towards the school or anything but

part if it is going towards charity so I thought that was good that some of it’s

going to charity and we got the rest. About 80% of the proﬁt went to us and I

believe 20% went to charity of our proﬁts
Although many youth understood the opportunity to make money, they expressed other

interests in the project. Many students thought money was an added project beneﬁt not so

much a perceived interest to join.

64

 

[Shannonz] Well basically what honestly caught my interest besides the
educational properties of growing plants was the money. Because according to the
people last year, a bunch of people made a good amount of proﬁt. It’s annual
income which means that I’ll be getting it at the end of the year which kinda
shows that I’m not exactly in it for the money, but hey it’s an added bonus, you
know, it’s cool

[Kelly]: So I decided like I should give it a shot because there seems like there’s

going to a money making opportunity as well as a business opportunity for me to

gain too in this program
Another student had the same feeling; they were interested in making money but also saw
the opportunity the program had to connect them with agriculture.

[Jessez] Other than making money, I’m always about making the money so if I

can ﬁnd a good way to make money and it’s an agriculture thing so it will help

me learn more about my agriculture so I like learning
Jamie also commented, “well obviously there is a proﬁt to be made from the
project. . .you know selling your own produce.”

When asked about why they joined, some students related their answer to what
coordinators communicated about the project and thus why they joined. Students from
every site understood the project in part as a way to make money during the summer.

[Kellyz] They said it would be a project about business, marketing and give us a

chance to make some money and stuff like that, so I was alright because I’m

interested in business anyways. Yeah well they started telling us how much

money we could make and the money that we were getting was a grant so it

wasn’t like we could go in the hole, it was only like we could make money
Although money was mentioned by at least one student from each site, some youth did
not mention the chance to earn money, and Taylor even said, “she mentioned money, that
there could be some money, but I didn’t really care too much about the money because I

have enough.” This was atypical of discussions surrounding money with interviewed

youth.

65

With the opportunity to earn, youth felt importance for money to be divided
equally dependent on responsibilities youth had and commitment shown to the project.
[Coreyz] She mentioned that if we ever go a proﬁt from it, it would be split evenly
like there were some kids who came and then they wouldn’t come and they’d just
sit around and to me it didn’t really sound fair and it happened before so she
mentioned that it would be split evenly with all the responsibilities
Through observations, dividing proﬁts fairly and amongst those individuals putting effort
in at meetings and at farm stand days was an apparent youth concern. During an
observation at Applegate, an in-depth record keeping system was explained by one
participant outlining the system to evenly split proﬁts made amongst participating youth.
Activities: Gardening
Many youth involved in the project had prior gardening experience. Cameron
said, “I joined because I wanted to help out with the garden since I already know how to
do gardening and I want to encourage and help them try to start there own garden when
they grow up.” This was an appealing point of the project as participants felt they already
had established gardens and experience making this project ideal and one worth pursuing.
For some students learning how to garden was appealing and for other students already
having established gardens was attractive.
[Alexz] I’ve had a garden at my grandpa’s house too that I helped take care of.
Since I was a little girl, I can remember always having a garden and it’s a good
way for me and my dad to spend time together
[Jamiez] Well, I lived with my grandparents for eight years, about six of those
eight years we moved from farm to farm and we always had gardens and animals
to take care of and l was already really good when it came to plants and animals

so I ﬁgured it be something I already know how to do so it wouldn’t be a
difﬁcult project

66

Gardening together with other students interested one student who had a garden at home.
Corey said, “yeah cause normally like at my house I’m the only one who does it so to do
it with lots of other people who like the same stuff interests me more.”

Interested students gardening usually mentioned an inﬂuential person with
gardening experience or who had exposed them. Shannon stated “and my dad is a green
thumb so I’m pretty good at growing plants and various herbs and ﬂowers and what not.”
Bailey made mention about interest in gardening, “sorta, I’ve helped my mom with her
garden sometimes throughout the years.” Other students expressed interest in gardening
because of parents experiences.

[Lee:] I just like planting stuff and farming because my daddy he’s a horticulture

expert and he does sod and different things and my mommy her garden is like so

pretty and she has all these ﬂowers and all this stuff and my daddy grew up on a

farm and so I don’t know I just like it

[Samz] Just being able to plant stuff because my mom was a migrant worker and

stuff so she got to plant stuff and pick stuff all the time so she wants me to get

interested and we plant stuff at home all the time and just the idea of having a

garden here or having a chance of dealing with produce and stuff got us excited I

guess

Students expressed interest in learning how to grow their own food through a
gardening experience, by cooking with produce from gardens. Sam said, “and I guess
with making salsa and stuff, the different recipes I like cooking, and the gardening stuff, I
have to learn more about it because my mom’s like an expert.” A couple of students
made mention importance of learning to grow and prepare food.

[Shannonz] So basically I joined because I thought it would be cool to learn how

to grow plants because when it comes down to it if you can grow your own food,

hey you can live anywhere, you know you don’t have to be like stuck

[Corey:] Well like dealing with produce and all that she that we would plant and
we use like the garden out here and that we could try like they talked about like

67

they made lots of food like they cooked a lot and that sounded fun because I love
to cook

By interviewing site coordinators, it became more apparent which youth were
motivated by gardening. Every site had a gardening component and through project
description, students understood the farm stand project providing opportunity to garden.
The following comments were made by site leaders at the end of the project regarding
youth motivation to garden.

[Coordinator E:] I think there initial motivation was to just have a garden, from

what I understand, and really I think that’s still the same motivation. I think they

just love being out there, watching things grow, planning them and just taking
care of it, I really think that’s it

[Coordinator A2] But he lives out in a rural area so for him having his own garden

was a big motivating factor, he could actually do some of the stuff on his own at

his own house, some of which he already did and I think her really enjoyed in
throughout the whole year
Another site had students not motivated to participate in gardening activities. During
initial interviews, interest in other aspects of the project prevailed, in particular business
and having ﬁrn. In contrast to other sites, these youth did not have experienced gardeners.

[Coordinator B:] To be honest with you that was the hardest part, it was hard

getting the kids to do want to water and do actual dirty work. They want to

participate in the fun activities and the actual farm stand; they don’t mind picking
the vegetables either but deﬁnitely it was hard to get them out there. There were
only a handful of kids that would actually you know water and do some other
things that were necessary to keep up the garden, other kids really didn’t want to
do it

For students with gardening experience or an interest in learning how to grow food, the

gardening component was a motivating factor to join. Upon joining, over half of involved

students were interested in the gardening part of farm stand project.

68

Relationships: Family and Friends

Relationships with others are seen as an important part in a young adult’s life,
from friends and family to teachers and classmates, youth are exposed to many different
people throughout their adolescent years. Through YFSP, relationships were emphasized
in youth interviews; they perceive the project as an opportunity to build and foster
relationships with friends, family, and coordinators.

As with most projects youth are attracted to, YF SP offers opportunity to work
with friends and classmates. Half of the interviewed students were inﬂuenced to join by
their ﬁiends and classmates. However, other students did not mention friends were
involved in the project and joined for other reasons, most of which have been previously
cited. Many youth mentioned they went to the meeting because ﬁiends were going. Jamie
expressed, “a couple of my friends are in it and a couple of my friends were originally
interested in it.” A couple of students inﬂuenced some other participants to join. Morgan
mentioned, “I wanted them to join because they are like my best friends here so I wanted
them to join with me.” Students from Coldwater and Applegate sites also mentioned they
hoped for new friendships by participating in farm stand project; most of these students
did not associate with each other prior to project involvement.

Beyond inﬂuence of joining, spending time with friends was cited by many youth
as a secondary motivator.

[Alex:] I get to hang out with my friends, I know a couple of my friends are going

to do it so it’s a good way during the meetings to hang out and we come up and

sell the produce on our one or two days a week, I get to hang out with my friends
too is another positive

When speaking about potential to earn money, Lee indicated she is not really interested

in the money she is happy doing it with her friends.

69

For many project sites, conﬂicting schedules and prior engagement did not allow
youth to interact outside class time; this was especially true for youth at the Bell site.
Jordan said, “we don’t have a lot of interactions with a lot of the students that go here and
when we do we usually tend to have a lot of fun.”

Although common with three students, working with family did not emerge as a
primary motivator for most participating students. Three students from Applegate felt
strongly about farm stand project providing opportunities to work with parents and
grandparents. Students from Applegate gardened and worked independently at home.
Applegate students understood working at home was a way to connect with family. Jamie
said, “it’s going to be a great way for me you know to hang out with my grandparents and
my cousins I don’t get to see very often because I don’t make it out there very often.”

[Alexz] Especially with my dad because he loves doing things outside, he hates

wintertime because he can’t be outside, he hates it. So this is going to be one thing

that he’s going to enjoy because I don’t have to go anywhere so it saves gas
money for him. We can just do it right at our house and he’s going to love that
It was apparent through ﬁrst interviews students joined farm stand project to interact with
friends and in the case of Applegate, students wanted to spend time with family. Whether
it was inﬂuence of friends or opportunity to work with and build new friendships, each
participant mentioned interacting with friends and family as a motivating reason to join.

When asked about the inﬂuence advisors and leaders had on decisions to join,
different responses emerged. Some indicated they would have joined if it were a different
leader while others had an already established relationship with the coordinators. Alex
spoke about the leader, “I’ve become very very close with her, it’s almost like she

doesn’t take on an advisor role with me and some other students, it’s like she’s a big

sister to us. That’s what we really like about her.” On the contrary, Sam spoke about a

70

leader, “we’re not close but I do a lot of after school activities and she’s the director or
whatever of it and I end up doing a lot of what she does all the time.” It can be said youth
did not join the project on the sole inﬂuence of leaders and for most youth this was not a
factor.

Future Ambitions and Skills

Although not prevalent motivators, at least one student from each site indicated
joining the farm stand project to inﬂuence their future or beneﬁt their resume or college
ambitions. Some youth saw potential skills they would gain as useful in future work and
life in general. Applegate was afﬁliated with the FFA chapter and students had
opportunity to complete a Supervised Agriculture Experience (SAE) through the farm
stand project.

[Alex:] I think my main motivation was adding another SAE to my resume.

Because being a state officer, I know that I’ve said that over and over again, but

that’s a really really big goal of mine to be a state ofﬁcer next year. I just really

want to build up my resume so that it’s at that level when I can become a state

officer. I think this SAE or more SAE hours is what really attracted me to the

farm stand project
A few youth mentioned the farm stand project as a resume enhancement. Shannon stated,
“yeah for one I get to put this on my resume and I’m proud of that because this has been
granted by Michigan State University and that’s the university that I want to go to.”

Future ambitions were secondary motivators for most students; they saw the good
the farm stand project would provide, yet joined for other primary reasons. Secondary
motivators are identiﬁed as those that youth mentioned but not predominant reasons for

participating. Business skills, customer service, cooking skills and skills utilized in

college applications were cited by some youth as beneﬁcial.

71

[Morgan]: I mean like it’s always good to know something extra like even if you
don’t really end up using it in the real world or making a career out of it or
anything but it’s always good to know something else cause like I said it’s always
something extra you can put on a college application like I was part of a garden
club in high school or a job application or something you know
The researcher asked a direct question about skills youth would like to gain from
participation. Many could not answer or were hesitant. Common responses indicated
youth were not joining farm stand project to their futures. Or youth could not connect
what they would be learning with future ambitions.

Bell youth made mention by participating in farm stand project it is positively
perceived in court and in the eyes of their probation officer. Kelly articulated, “the fact
that I’m doing something productive instead of going out and getting in trouble, I’m like
doing something that will help me in the future instead of something that will get me not
very far.” Coldwater youth were offered high school credit to participate in the project
and although interviewed youth were not primarily motivated for class credit, they
believed other students were participating as an opportunity to earn credit.

Summary of Why Youth Joined the Youth Farm Stand Project

For many youth reasons to join the project were because it was something to do
and it was ﬁm. Overall, interviewed youth joined the farm stand project based on their
perceptions of what the project was about. What leaders emphasized to students during
recruitment as opportunities to join were usually reiterated by youth as project beneﬁts.
Students with gardening experience saw opportunity to do something they were already
involved with while helping fellow classmates garden. The inﬂuence of others, including

friends, family and leaders was perceived my most students as a secondary motivator to

participation; however, some youth joined on the whim their friends said it would be fun.

72

Lastly, most youth saw the farm stand project as a way to beneﬁt future ambitions or to
develop skills. However, overall, most youth did not make the connection that farm stand
could possibly beneﬁt them in future work situations and ambitions.
Question 2: Positive Attributes of Youth Farm Stand Project Structure

Youth farm stand participants expressed many enjoyable activities associated with
the project. From initial participation to project end, youth participated in activities
including gardening, farm stand management, marketing, nutrition education through
cooking demonstrations, and tearnbuilding activities. Positive comments regarding
project structure and logistical components emerged through interviews. Youth
perceptions about how the project was run contributed to overall satisfaction and
interpreted as reason for continued participation. Beyond activity enjoyment, youth
expressed other enjoyable aspects including decision-making authority, shared
responsibility, engaging teamwork, and caring coordinators. Coordinators stated youth
felt they contributed to the farm stand when granted ability to make decisions.
Coordinators often took an advisory role rather than an authorize role.

[Coordinator D:] I tried not to do everything for them, I tried to allow them to do

everything, I would guide them and direct them as needed, but I let them take

charge and I think that was really important and that’s what made them feel that

they were really needed, because somebody had to do this and somebody had to

do that
Other coordinators expressed similar feelings. They also noted that help was granted
when necessary, especially with technical assistance and making connections.

Decision Making

Most decisions were made as a group. Students expressed positive comments

about decision-making abilities and its valued importance to participation in YFSP.

73

During both ﬁrst round interviews and second round interviews, students shared similar
feelings about advisors role in decision-making. One student, Jamie from Applegate,
expressed unhappiness in the way the coordinator managed decision-making. During ﬁrst
interviews, students had little experience with the project and the way in which decisions
would be made, but comments indicated decision-making contributed to participation.
[Kelly]: You know I didn’t really want to do it if it were more like you guys are
doing this, this and that, like go do your business plan, like if they had to much
control, they have a lot of control over a lot of thing so it’s nice to do a business
and to have our own say like count much more in our project, you know we don’t
want to work on it if you guys tell us what to do, you can work on it
Understanding YFSP as student-run with help ﬁom teachers and coordinators appealed to
other students. A couple students expressed coordinators took the lead, yet independence
was granted and everything was voted upon inclusive of group opinions. Students
understood coordinators were ultimately in charge but believed youth input was an
important part of farm stand experience. Students commented on the advantageous way
decisions were made inclusive of everyone when necessary voting or consensus was
needed.
[Samz] we vote on it, like we give ideas, and there aren’t any rude kids there,
pretty much under control and we just give ides, there is a treasurer and people
like that and there is a person that writes down everything that is said and then at
the end we review and vote, it’s pretty much fair
Ensuring decisions were made fairly was mentioned by a number of students; if fairness
was perceived in the way decisions were made students felt opinions mattered.
Working together to accomplish group goals required decision-making amongst
many groups. During second interviews youth highlighted the ability for their groups to

work together to make decisions and follow through with needed steps to fulﬁll decided

upon tasks.

74

 

[Alex:] We decided as a group, if there was something that needed to be decided

we would have a meeting and we would sit down together and talk about what

needed to happen and then we would ﬁgure out a plant of action and carry it out
Youth stated that being an active member to assist in making group decisions was
valuable to participation.

[Corey:] I like how whenever anyone or I had an idea about the cooking or what

we were going to sell they always said oh yeah we can do it, we never said that

we couldn’t do the, we always said that we could and I like how we cooked and

we gardened and we got to set-up the stand, and like she just put it on us, and we

kinda felt important like we had a job to do
Contrary to Corey’s comments, Jamie expressed:

the fact that many good ideas, not only ﬁ'om myself but from others, were simply

shot down because Ava has put it, it was only out ﬁrst year and they weren’t

going to try and do that yet, even though it would have helped us more
A second interview was conducted with Jamie; however, his participation in the latter
part of the project was sporadic. Through other comments and actions it became apparent
Jamie was not happy with project structure or the leader’s coordinating style.

Teamwork

As observed through observations and cited during interviews, some youth did not
know each other prior to involvement in YFSP. This was expressed by Applegate, Bell
and Coldwater youth. Although friends were inﬂuential in recruitment, it was usually
only one or two students who knew each other prior to project activities. Even when
students knew each other, teamwork and group identity was an important aspect noted by
several youth and coordinators. Throughout the project, coordinators noted group
identities forming, and Coordinator C commented her group was like a family working

together. They further stated, “I think they’ve really, through this process, they’re now

motivated by kind of a commitment to the group.”

75

[Coordinator D:] I tried to make them feel like they were needed and were an
integral part of the group, that we needed them you know. Even when they went
on a doctor’s appointment or something they came back, after they were done
they came back in a hurry. I tried to make them really feel like part of a family,
because I think they just loved being together too, I think they became a little
family
Coordinators and youth alike made convincing comments about opportunities to work
together and form a cohesive identity with each other and their small community sites.
[Jamiez] Me and the others when it came to being in school, we never talked, we
weren’t anywhere near each other, but once we started doing this farm stand
project there has been a lot of comradely formed and everyone has become a lot
closer
From regular programming and class work, YFSP offered unique opportunities to
participate, especially for very structured programs. Coordinator B stated, “so this was
kind of a project that was outside of that and we had fun working together, just like I said
it was like a team feeling, a team atmosphere.” Lee expressed similar feelings about
teamwork, “the people and the teamwork and the fact that we got to go out there and do
something instead of being here at the school all the time, we actually go out and try to
sell our own stuff.” Participating as a group and working with other students during farm
stand activities was cited by a number of youth as an enjoyable experience.
[Morgan:] I’ve gained, well I know that teamwork, how much more important
teamwork is to get something done so I mean before you already have to work in
a team at classes and stuff but now we’re actually working physically as a team
and we’re getting the reward out of it in the end
Each group worked together to achieve common goals. Although doubt over teamwork
was conceived by a couple of students in the beginning, their preconceived perceptions

were alleviated by working together throughout and building a collaborative relationship

amongst one another.

76

Caring Adults/Mentors

Sites had one or two adult supervisors also known as project coordinators. The
projects’ successes relied heavily on coordinator inﬂuence and ability to manage
activities and supervise students. It was apparent through observations that coordinators
played an integral part in mentoring students in building skills and connecting with each
other as a team. Students appreciated project ownership. Alex articulated, “she’ll let us
run it and then she’ll come back when it’s over and help us tear down and take stuff back
up to the school so she makes us feel good, she trusts us to run it.” Coordinators also saw
ownership as an important project component. Coordinator D said, “I think eventually
they became more competent in their skills and competent in what they were doing, they
began to take charge and I was just there to supervise and help.” Taking the project lead
and making the project their own was named by several students as a participation factor.
Yet, supervision and guidance by coordinators was important for most students as they
understood the advice was necessary for success.

[Morgan:] I like having to see her all the time and having straight forward

direction even though we kinda know what to do on our own, like just having

someone there to help us is really good and it’s motivating because like I said

that’s what she does for a living
Beyond guidance and supervision, some students commented on connections made with
coordinators. Shannon expressed, “she’s nice, she’s caring, shoot, she’s given me rides to
my house, she’s given me rides here, take me there, I went to the Commissioner’s board
with her, she’s cool. She’s like the backbone of this project.” However, during second-
round interviews, a couple students expressed concern over coordinator expectations.

[Samz] Individually I was busy; I couldn’t come to every single one of them. So if

I didn’t come she would like come over and talk to me about it and I have other
stuff to do and I tried to tell her that and she doesn’t seem to get that now I’m in

77

high school and I can’t always come over here and I have Marching Band and

It’s just a whole lot of stuff. And eventually she’s going to have to let go of us and

actually depend on someone else
Corey and Charlie, both from Duffy, shared similar comments. They felt being the older
students and being most committed allowed the coordinator to rely on them more, even
when schedules did not allow, especially during summer months. Students at Elgin made
positive comments about personal connections made with Coordinator E. Lee mentioned,
“it’s been a pleasure working with Coordinator E and getting to know her.” Alex
commented on her relationship with Coordinator A, “I think she’s a great advisor, when
she becomes a teacher, she’s going to be a great teacher.” Overall, students felt conﬁdent
in help received by coordinators regarding farm stand logistics and activities. Some
students felt commitment pressures while other students positively commented on formed
relationships and coordinator support. Comrrritrnent pressures from coordinators were
expressed by youth at Duffy as hindering the relationship formed between youth and
adult mentors.
Summary of Attributes of Farm Stand Project Components

Youth cited project structure and attributes as important factors to participation.
Students and coordinators felt it necessary to make the project student-run and allow for
ownership and decision-making. Although some youth felt overwhelmed with time
commitment expected by coordinators, youth positively accepted coordinators leadership
style and project commitment.
Question 3: Youth Engagement — Sustained Project Involvement

YF SP was designed as a year long initiative to involve youth in planning, growing

or procuring, and running farm stands. From project onset, some sites had continuous

78

participant tum-over. Engagement in certain aspects of the project may have happened.
Overall project engagement did not result. Barriers to sustained participation was
addressed from the coordinators standpoint and illustrated in the ﬁnal research question.
For the purpose of this section, factors encouraging engagement of eight students,
interviewed twice, is reported. Two of eight students sporadically participated through
summer months and availability for a second interview was not problematic. This was not
the case for seven students who did not complete.

As a way to report youth engagement results, three topics are addressed: (1)
change in youth perceptions, (2) reasons for staying involved, and (3) engaging activities.
Coordinators’ views on youth engagement are reported amongst the ﬁndings. Because
sites focused on different project aspects, comments vary, yet similarities resulted and are
the basis of this portion of results.

Change in Youth Perceptions

One incentive communicated through recruitment was possibility to earn money
by participating in YFSP. From initial interviews, this was motivation for a number of
students to participate. Throughout the growing season, most sites were not making
money. One student at Coldwater stopped participating because of lack of ﬁnancial
award. However, at project end, Coordinator C said, “at the beginning it was all about
credits and all you, you know ‘are we gonna make any money?’ And now as the season’s
winding down, the group has really formed an identity.” By interacting with students at
Coldwater it was apparent earning proﬁt did not have bearing over continued
participation. Interacting with Coldwater youth proved changed perception from making

money and earning credits to completing a project they started and developing gardening

79

skills. Other students who initially wanted to make money continued participation, even
when money was not earned.

[Jamiez] In the beginning I came here just because it was something to do and I’d

make a little bit of spending cash and eventually I just came down here to hang

out with the others and just chill out at the farm stand, if people stopped hey cool,
if they didn’t, whatever
Coordinator B said her youth were involved to make money as an incentive at the
beginning, but students who joined later were not aware of the possibility and continued
participation for other reasons. Bell programming required students to work.
[Coordinator B:] The way it’s set up now that school has started, they have a
choice to either work or participate in the project, and quite a few of the kids
choose to participate in the farm stand project even though they are not getting
paid like they would it they were working
Elgin students said they thought they would earn money, but participating in YF SP
project was fun so it did not bother them not having made money.

Students interested in gardening remained interested and engaged through the
summer and youth who did not originally cite gardening as a motivating factor for
involvement saw gardening as an engaging project component.

[Corey:] In the beginning I came because I wanted to cook more, I wasn’t really

interested in gardening and when she said that we were going to grow stuff I was

like ok. She really encouraged us to grow stuff so I planted some of my stuff and
then it just grew and grew and then I wasn’t there to just cook anymore I was
there to garden
A student from Elgin had the same feelings, yet at the end of the project referred to
gardening as the most fun part of farm stand project.

[Leez] It started with we had cooking forum and gardening forum, I was in

cooking forum and they got rid of cooking and it was just going to be gardening. I

didn’t want to do that because I don’t know I just didn’t want to cause when we

walked outside they garden was smelling really bad so I didn’t want to do it at
ﬁrst

80

Some youth did not change their perceptions about the project. Alex from Applegate saw
an opportunity to participate in an F F A project through YFSP. Duffy youth saw an
opportunity to cook and Elgin youth continued believing in fun activities the project
offered outside normal school programming.

Reasons for Staying Involved

During second interviews and observations, youth continually commented on the
importance of completing a project they started and seeing YFSP to the end. Among
other reasons, youth engaged until the end by planning, planting and caring for a garden,
and managing a farm stand. Attending activities through summer was an obstacle for
some youth. Transportation, other commitments, and lack of desire to go to the school
during summer were mentioned. Charlie expressed, “I really didn’t want to come over the
summer, come back to school, but I did it anyway because if you’re a part of something
you should stay a part of it, not just quit.” Charlie further commented, “I’m not really
involved in much over the summer so I’m really bored over the summer so to do
something to get out of the house I guess is what kept me coming and plus my friends of
course.” It became apparent through coordinator interviews that they believed youth
retention was not a problem. Both coordinators at Duffy and Elgin felt they did not have
to do much to retain their youth through summer months. Coordinator D said, “I don’t
really feel like I had any obstacles this year, I retained them very well.” Coordinator A
acknowledged scheduling conﬂicts and summer commitments as reasons youth could not
always participate in programs.

A couple students saw the good in what participation was doing by helping

communities and providing produce access to low-income residents through farm stands.

81

[Morgan:] I’ve been there every Sunday and I just wanted to go so I can see all

the hard work that me and my group have done to like see it sold and make a

proﬁt off of it and that’s what pretty much kept me with it because it shows what I

did is important to somebody and they really like what I am doing
Youth enjoyed working at the stand and seeing efforts realized. Duffy and Applegate
youth said they stayed through the project to work at the farm stand and socialize with
other participants and community members.

[Corey:] I like to work at the garden, I like to work at the stand but I like to work

at the garden more and so when I did that I knew that we were going to put it in

the stand so it was equally important as working in the stand. I like putting it up

and watching people come in the shop and seeing my handy work and arranging

everything
One student participated before summer and was disappointed with not being able to
participate during the summer due to family commitments and summer school. Cameron
stated, “and I was disappointed that I couldn’t come over the summer because I felt like I
was missing out on everything and the garden.” Each student stayed for different reasons,
having something to do during the summer was named a number of times.

Engaging A ctivities

Along with initial motivation to join YFSP, students expressed activities or
interests enhancing involvement. As deﬁned, youth had to engage in meaningful
activities and sustain participation beyond the good of himself or herself. During second
round interviews, students revealed activities surrounding YFSP proved engaging. Much
like motivational factors, dominant engaging factors included: (1) having fun while
spending time with friends, (2) gardening, (3) working at farm stands and (4) having

something to do. Secondary activities included: (1) cooking, (2) gaining business skills,

and (3) interacting with customers. Although individual students expressed these

82

activities as engaging, they were only noted by one or two students. Therefore they are
not seen as most engaging as compared to the four reported activities.

Spending time with friends at the farm stands and while gardening was noted by a
number of students as enjoyable. When Charlie was asked about the best part of the
project, it was mentioned, “my friends, cause we only see each other during the school
day so being after school and them being there too, I don’t kinda do anything that they’re
in.” Although students did not necessarily know each other at the start, by interacting and
working together to accomplish project goals, new friendships emerged.

[Coordinator A:] I think that you take student who probably weren’t hanging out

with the popular girls and then put them down here at the farm stand and they

have to sit and help customers for a few hours twice a week and I think created

some really good friendships
Besides new friendships forming, several students and coordinators noted having fun
together as the most enjoyable part of the project. Coordinator B said, “I think it ended up
just being fun working together, doing something different in the program.” When asked
about engaging activities, Coordinator B expressed, “I really didn’t have to do anything,
the kids that seemed to be motivated stayed motivated, I didn’t really have to do anything
to keep the kids on board. I think they enjoyed doing it.”

Participating in fun activities was mentioned, including activities as gardening,
cooking, and farm stand marketing. Morgan said, “I like how everyone was so nice about
it and everything and how it was interesting to learn how to like I said just do something
that you enjoy doing and then make a proﬁt off of it so I thought it was fun.” Youth and
coordinators expressed ability to work with fellow students, coordinators and community

members were enjoyable. The number one indicator for sustained engagement was the

projects’ social aspects. Coordinator A commented, “I think for them this market time

83

here, between eight and noon and ﬁve and eight on Wednesdays, that was the part they
enjoyed the most, that was the social aspect.” Corey said, “it was the same amount of
kids and it was every time, yes we talked seriously about it and then we got to work and
had fun.” Interviews and observations concluded that having fun while participating in
activities was reason for sustained engagement. Youth interested in making money at the
beginning continued to participate when the activities proved exciting and fun.

Several coordinators and participants mentioned gardening and farm stand
activities as engaging. Comments centered on customer interaction and watching gardens
grow and ﬂourish. Youth mentioned they saw their hard work devoted to the project as
they worked at the farm stand and sold produce they spent time growing.

[Lee:] I don’t know that was just fun, you get to meet people, people walk up and

they’d ask what is it and you get to tell them about it and they are like oh ok and

they decide to buy something based on that, we’re the YFSP from Elgin
Coordinators shared similar feelings. They were surprised that youth found joy in
watching gardens grow and working at a farm stand. Coordinator C stated, “and actually
what was kinda cool, and I didn’t really expect this out of kids that age, they were really
excited about the progress of the garden.”

[Coordinator E:] I would say just having fun. The girls that were able to come to

the farmers market with me, we had a blast, you know just being there, even in

the garden they have fun, they really just enjoy being outside and they don’t mind
getting dirty and they don’t mind the hard work and I think they enjoy it
As witnessed through observations, the experience of working at a farm stand and
interacting with customers was engaging for some students. Marketing and the

experience of working outside was noted by students as sometimes challenging but

beneficial. Corey mentioned coming up with new ideas for each season and creating and

84

selling new products. She said the experience made her look forward to the next season.

Most students expressed the experience farm stand offered them was rewarding.
[Morgan:] Yeah but I mean the main part of it was like the outdoor experience
and learning stuff I never really knew before and how things grow in different
seasons and everything so the proﬁt was good but the experience was better of
how to do it

Although some youth articulated experience YF SP gave them, some youth continued to

express the project as something to do and did not provide speciﬁc experiences that were

gained. Initially youth joined because it was something to do and remained engaged for

the same reason. However, youth communicated engaging aspects of the project.
[Jamie:] I’ve always enjoyed growing vegetables and produce, I lived on a farm

with my grandparents for a few years and we grew everything form corn to beans
and all that and it just sound like something fun to do

 

Participants, especially those at Duffy thoughtfully communicated engaging activities
they took part in through YFSP, but when asked about sustained involvement Sam
commented, “I didn’t have anything else better to do pretty much.” Even Coordinator D
touched on this, “well I think it was a fun and interesting thing to do at school for them
because there aren’t, well there aren’t many things for them to do.” Also, coordinators at
Bell and Coldwater alluded to their participants not having opportunity to participate in
other activities and YFSP offered something to do during the summer, beyond ordinary
programming or daily activities.
Summary of Youth Engagement —- Sustained Project Involvement

Availability of eight youth allowed the researcher to conduct second round
interviews during the last month of the project. Two of the eight students participated
sporadically during summer months and their comments provided useful data.

Coordinators provided perspective on engaging activities and changed perceptions youth

85

showed throughout the project. Results showed opportunity to earn money was not an
engaging factor and since many sites did not make money, it was not a reason for
continued participation. Knowing that work was attributed to the greater good of the
community was noted by some students as a beneﬁcial aspect to participation.
Coordinators and participants cited having fun and spending time with friends as an
enjoyable aspect of the project. Gardening and working at the farm stand were seen by

several participants as reasons for continued involvement and engagement. Participants E

4. ..("

remained engaged in YFSP for the experience offered and the notion that it was an
avenue to spend time with friends while having something to do.

From initial interviews until project end, some students’ motivation to participate

 

IF?

and remain engaged in YFSP changed. Other students did not complete the project for
reasons beyond their control. Table 4.2 illustrates reasons for joining and staying
involved in the project. It also outlines trends, changes and barriers to participation. The

table summarizes youth interviews and initial participation to sustained involvement.

86

 

 

=0m :0 :8on 5295 229:8 8: ED 20 3 w:_50:8m . =0m I 823
2:20 9:220:04 _.
>089: E8 8 00:25 ..
88 :_ 350:0;
0n 9 850928: 502080: .
=0m :0 8.2on 5225 229:8 8: :5 2:20 mmoﬁmsm . =0m I 502
»088 E8 9 00:30 .
20:25 53> 09:5 5:25 .
0085090
85025.8: 08:32:? :0 8 80:80 . 208—95
085802: 2 35:5 3 209: :2200Q 22:88 8: ED 3:088:3w 53> :2086 u I 0002.
80.88 8.75255 ..
8080235 0: 8 w:m50~8m .
2:8 88:88 20:25 53» 0:5 85:25 082898 :2086 ._
850928: 288% >088 :80 8 00:25 - 20w29_<
E 8:30: 8:05:88 555 SE80 8:25 5:5 0:5 5:25 585 555 0:5 5:0:m ._ I 282.
0:800: 2 85:80 0222 .
80.88 2825.8: 0:05 8250 <9.
.8 E08880 m<m 5:0 «in E 52008::— 85 53> 0:5 5:25 5:0 855 555 085 5:25 -
0:8: :0 8:8 08 :208w 8: BO m<m 229:00 080: :0 :2080 n
0053500 :05: :_ 850228: 82.88 m<m 22980 ._ 20w2aa<
52:08:. 22:3 88:80 855 E <92 5 202223 80.88 ”En— :_ 08328: . - x2<
€028E0u:a__0\5:0uh ”—535 8.— 0883— wﬁﬁen 8m 8883— 2892.8.—

 

Sah 30.58:: 5838 AEEEAm.

new 050,—.

87

8:25 30: :23 082: 82:88 88.80
2220 02>8m 88908 8800

8:08:88 88“: 88088 8082888 20 .2
022280 w:2:0:8w :23 8888020

0888 82208 82200: 825

022280 :88 8: 88.8m—

w8:0::0w 88.80 2.00:

:8 05 :2 :8 82:88 :_ 8:00.882 83 88:80: 05 :<

8:08:88 3 :08: 00 I 82.88 05 :2 8:888 2:002
888 8282

8:08:88 020 .8 8m
$882288 005:8
8: :2: 80:80 E3 0888 8: :2: 8:08:800

888 228”—

=0m :0 8808 880

o: 0: 825085
82800
022280

:88 8”:

283800
8: 0: 825088
82800

08888
8: :5

08888
8: :5

08888
8: :5

08888
8: :5

0:85”:
o: 0: 85088
8.28888 8881
880800

0: 8: 825088
:5 8::8m

08:8: 8: :22::<
o: 8: 85888
888 80 c: 00820
0082898 880800

80.:
o: 8:88 3 80:25::
888 80 0: 00820

8:858 :8
:0:.:0w c: 8280.:
:5 8::8m

o: 8: 825088

:5 8:88m

038.: .8

:8 :00:— o: w:E:088m
o: 8: 825088

8.3: I 8m

5.80 I 2080

8:03:80
I 882m

8:03:80
I 8:3

8:03:80
-8308.

:00 I 2.80

 

3.8: S. 28.

88

 

80508 0 0088800 003 8:88:08;
8:08:88

8088 ::0 8:08:88 :83 :00008 80>
0:88.:

:83 08:: 88800 ::0 :83800: 8 8:00:08—
0888080: 0::3 :8 :03

8880

0:: 8 0:088:00: 8: :88 0:0 8888005

.=0m 0:: 8 808 8:00 80:00 8:3 8:088:00:
80800 00:: 880 8:88:88 8: 8802

80:00 88800 0: ::03

0:0 000000: 8880 0:: 8 :0_ 0 0:088:00: 8: :5

8:08:88 80.88 :83 80003

::0:0:800 880::0w 8880

0:08 88:

8:08 80:83 :08 :8 :0: 8: ::0:0 8 :0:008::_

0:888 :83 08::

88:80 88.80 8: 8:08 8808 8 8:00.88—
:0088 0:: :08: 0: 8803 8:

88:0 0:: 88:: 80:00 0:: 0: 0w 0: ::03 :0: :5

:83800H

0:88

5:3 2:0 050500
0:08 003 8:08

0::: 8:3 :08 :8 :0:

88800 0:: 88:: ::0

8008 003 0:0 0:: ::0”—

880800

::0:0 80.: 0:: :0 0:90:08

:83 08:: 88:08
:8 ::0 8:00:08—

::08:_8800 8085
0:85

a? 2:0 058000
0: 0: 88:080m
8:08 :80 0: 88:0

0:85 :83 08:: ::0am
8:08 800 0: 00:0:0
880800

80_. 0:

0:85 0:: 888080
0008 .8 ::0 8800
00:88:08 880800

0:880:80 08:00
8:00:88

::0 :8 :0::=0m
08080

:0:.:0w 0:: 8 8883
8:08 800 0: 00:0:0

080: cm 0: ::03 :88
I 0: 0: w8::080m

88

0: 0:85 8 80:08.8:

. 508 - 8:

. :80
u - :08800

. 88m
- I :0w82

8:0
. .. 2:98

0,080 3 2%:

89

Question 4: Barriers to Participation

YFSP was a year long initiative, yet seven of 15 initial students who started the
project and interviewed did not complete for various reasons. Rather than speculate why
they did not complete, interviews were conducted with coordinators to gain a better
understanding of why youth did not complete or continue participation. Main
participation barriers faced by youth included transportation, family commitments and
program completion. Table 4.3 illustrates barriers faced by youth and are categorized by
sites. Coordinators and youth participants expressed these barriers. Beyond control of

project parameters, these obstacles are discussed in detail.

Table 4.3

Barriers impacting youth participation in farm stand project.

 

Study site Participation barriers (beyond Students’ decision to discontinue or

 

project parameters) disengage from project
Applegate I Decision made by family to I Conﬂict with coordinator
discontinue participation
Bell I No longer afﬁliated with host I N/A
program
Coldwater I Transportation to project site I Student was not earning money
I Family moved during project
I Enlisted in Marines
Duffy I Family moved during project I Commitment pressures of

coordinator towards youth

90

Table 4.3 (con’t)

 

Elgin I Family illness I N/A
I Summer school

I Transportation to project site

 

One interviewed student did not complete the project because of dissatisfaction
with parts of YFSP. Bailey stopped attending and expressed to the school social worker,
“well it wasn’t really worth it, I didn’t make any money.” Mid-summer Jamie stopped
participating. Coordinator A commented, “I think part of that was not having as much
support as he may have needed and I think that was a place where the coordinators could
have done more to retain him throughout.

[J amiez] With Coordinator A not hovering over our shoulders nit picking about

every little thing it went a lot smoother. And then there were a couple of bad

times, we had a couple of arguments about stuff being grown and people not
showing up as much as they should and stuff like that and reasons, just all kinds
of stuff
Although Jamie did not remain active through the summer months, he participated
periodically. Jamie and Bailey were the only students who did not remain active out of
their own choice. Other inactive students were faced with barriers beyond their control.

Interviewing coordinators provided the opportunity to report on why the students
did not continue participation throughout the summer months and thus did not remain
engaged. Coordinators also alluded to students who were not interviewed but were part of
the YFSP and did not complete because of external obstacles. At Bell site where youth

were court ordered to participate in programming, three students initially interviewed did

not complete the project.

91

[Coordinator B2] The kids that did not ﬁnish or complete the project, I do not
believe it was in control of whether they wanted to or not, either a) they were no
longer in our program and they were not allowed back because of circumstances,
cause this is a court ordered program, so either the court said they couldn’t
participate in this program or something else happened they had to go to another
program or b) they were just done with our program and then other things in there
lives just kinda took over, whether it was work or school or there was absolutely
no way for them to participate any longer, but I don’t believe it was because they
didn’t necessarily want to. I have no reason to believe that it wasn’t because they
wanted to, if they were still enrolled in programming, I believe those same kids
would still be participating

As the coordinator said, the reasons participants did not complete the project were not the
fault of YFSP logistics or programming matters. They did not complete because of other
factors in their life and new commitments.

Almost every coordinator cited family commitments as reasons why youth did not
complete the project. Shannon initially very interested and attended almost every meeting
had to leave the program when his mother moved.

[Coordinator C:] A lot of these kids, several of them that left the project, they

moved. You know, and it wasn’t like a traditional move like we would think. A

lot of them weren’t living with both of their parents or even any of their parents.

We had kids that were living with grandparents, kids that were living with friends,

kids that were living in foster care, kids that were living by themselves
Coordinator D also said two students who did not complete her project had moved out of
the area. These were students that were not interviewed at the Duffy site. Beyond making
a family move, one student at Elgin made a commitment to care for her sick grandmother
throughout the summer and was not able to participate in YF SP. Outside pressures from
family members resulted in Jesse not participating.

[Coordinator A:] We really wanted Jesse to do the project because he was a

really, at the beginning of the project he was really motivated and excited about

what was going on. I think that he got some other outside pressure and decisions
that were made by his family, I think we could have retained him but it would

have been a ﬁght on all sides to do that and making it not a comfortable situation
for either the coordinators or for the student

92

As mentioned, Jesse was very motivated at the beginning, but family pressures attributed
to his lack of participation.
Most sites faced transportation barriers. Although students continued participation
in the summer, it was often sporadic and a challenge for students and site leaders alike.
[Coordinator C:] Over the summer I think transportation was a big thing, like a
huge thing. It was very, most of the kids, well, I would say none of the kids had
their own transportation, a majority of them, their parents had no transportation.
And, you know, Coldwater is still a fairly rural area. We don’t have public
transportation so, I did all the transporting of the kids to the site which is ﬁne, but
you can’t, you know, when I can only ﬁt four kids in my car that limits how many
kids can participate on any given day that was a real limiting factor. We could
have ten kids out there, but I can’t get them all there
Transportation was a limiting factor at Elgin. Participants who were able to arrange their
own ride participated. When asked how youth were retained throughout the project,
Coordinator E commented, “that was difﬁcult, the ones that were able to go to the
markets and be able to be here when school wasn’t in were here, I didn’t really have to do
anything, it was all about transportation.”
[Coordinator Dz] there are a couple of kids that I do have to take and it takes me
probably a little more than 45 minutes to pick them up take them back, you know
it’s just another hour plus in my day, it’s getting to be very time consuming
Providing youth transportation to participate in the project was not advantageous, yet
some coordinators provided rides when necessary.
Summary of Barriers to Participation
Programming constraints, family commitments and transportation barriers were
faced by youth who could not continue participating in the summer. When school was in

session and programming was integrated into class work or after-school, participation

was likely. Sporadic participation occurred throughout the summer months and students

93

who could get to the project site participated. Main reasons for discontinued participation
resulted by barriers beyond student control. From student and coordinator comments,
two students disengaged from the program, one youth was not pleased with the
coordinator, and the other was not happy with the little money made.
Overall Summary: Results

After examining the data and reporting results on each research question, it is
apparent youth joined and engaged in YFSP for different reasons. The site diversity
attributed to this ﬁnding, as trends existed amongst youth from like sites. Figures 4.2
through 4.6 summarize initial reasons for joining and staying involved in YFSP. Figures
are comprised of data expressed by youth and coordinators. Each ﬁgure reviews results

concluded in this chapter.

 

 

Applegate Site
Initial ' ‘ ‘ Ending
P
I FFA project (SAE) - FFA project (SAE)
' Chance to earn money I Spend time with friends
I Addrtron to resume - Garden at home
I Spend time with family
I Garden at home
I Previous gardening
experience

 

 

Figure 4.2. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Applegate
students.

94

 

 

“sen Site A '

 

 

Initial Ending
I Chance to earn money Teamwork
I Business skills Something to do outside
I Something to do of regular programming
I Participation beneﬁts activities
students’ situation in
Probate Court

 

Figure 4. 3. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Bell students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coldwater Site
Initial Ending
}
I Chance to earn money I Teamwork — group identity
I School credit hours I Commitment to project
I Something to do I Something to do
I Previous gardening I Gardening
experience
Figure 4. 4. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Coldwater
students.
' Duffy Site
Initial Ending
+
. Cooking I Spending time with friends
I Something to do ' Something to do
I Gardening ' Gar demng
I Gardening experience ' Cooking
I Spending time with friends ' Chance to earn money

 

 

Figure 4. 5. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Duffy students.

95

 

 

 

 

 

Elgin Site

Initial Ending

 

>
I Spending time with friends - Spending time with
I Something to do friends
I Gardening I Having fun
" Prevrous gardening I Something to do
experience . Gardening

I Chance to earn money

 

 

 

Figure 4. 6. Illustration of initial motivation to ending participation for Elgin students.

As Figures 4.2 to 4.6 illustrate, the most common theme expressed by youth and
coordinators was YFSP offered ‘something to do’ initially and throughout the summer.
YFSP attracted some students as opportunity to make money; however, during ﬁnal
interviews some of those same youth mentioned not making money but still participating
because it was fun. The gardening component attracted and sustained youth participation.
By growing and interacting in the garden, many students expressed the perceived fun
they were having. Overall, youth were initially extrinsically motivated to participate for
reasons such as making money and school or court credit. As time passed, it became
apparent, youth continued participating and were motivated by intrinsic factors,
including, spending time with friends and having fun. Most students experienced
movement from motivation to engagement, even when external barriers prevented
continued participation. External barriers included, transportation, family commitments,
and withdraw from host program. Results conclude youths’ reasons for sustained
engagement differed from their initial motivation indicating movement along the

continuum when outside obstacles did not prevail.

96

5. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

This section synthesizes and discusses study results. It highlights insights into the
ﬁndings while connecting the study with past research done by Pearce and Larson (2006)
among other motivational and engagement studies. Further, discussion surrounds
theoretical implications and suggestions for future practice. By evaluating YFSP through
the lens of motivation and engagement, the study was designed to gather participant
perspectives with coordinators contributing supplemental information in order to best
answer the research questions. From the data, motivational factors and project
engagement varied amongst participants. The small nature of the study indicates results
can not be generalized across a large population; however, study outcomes contribute to
YFSP research knowledge.

Researcher’s Insights into Results

Results concluded farm stand project programming continually changed
throughout. From initial meetings, youth faced barriers resulting in discontinued or
sporadic participation causing necessary adjustments. Although some programs
incorporated programming during school day activities, student involvement was
voluntary. Voluntary participation attributed to some irregular involvement; however,
eight of 15 initially interviewed youth engaged in some aspect of YFSP from beginning
to end. Some students chose not to participate fully throughout the summer, or were not
able because of barriers beyond their control. Similar to ﬁndings of Saito (2006) and
Lauver et al., (2004), summer months caused havoc for some participants. Barriers

included family commitments and transportation problems.

97

The nature of some programs youth afﬁliated with caused participant turnover. In
particular, Bell and Coldwater cater to at-risk youth in which stability and family support
are sometimes in jeopardy. Initially students at Bell and Coldwater were keen to
participate in the project and demonstrated motivating factors during conversations. Bell
students discontinued participation when their time at the Bell program was complete.
These students either ﬁnished the program or went back to their comprehensive high
school or other life factors prevented participation. Students who engaged at the
beginning were not the same youth who participated during summer months and into
project end. Caused not by YF SP programming but the inherent nature of Coldwater, the
original youth did not complete the program. From conversation with the coordinator, it
was beyond individual youth capacity to continue participation. Although sustained
engagement did not happen, it is perceived youth would have continued participating if
external barriers did not persist. Referring back to the deﬁnition engagement, youth did
not continually participate but when possible remained in the project. Youth were
engaged when they were able to participate.

It was articulated by coordinators, youth at Bell and Coldwater wanted to
continue participation. Because of constant youth turnover, coordinators continually
recruited youth. Although sustained engagement was a contingent part of the study,
results Show the difficulty continuous involvement causes for at-risk youth. It is
important to realize that although youth did not necessarily continue participation through
the one-year initiative, they showed signs of engagement in aspects of the project,
including business plamring and gardening. Further, Bell and Coldwater youth

commented on the valuable relationships formed with coordinators and the opportunity to

98

participate in a program outside regular programming parameters. Marczak et al., (2006)
found youth were motivated by caring adults and was inﬂuential in retaining participants.
Findings from these sites attribute to the research ﬁndings and emphasize factors to
consider when recruiting and retaining participants.

Youth cited many motivational factors when choosing to participate in YFSP.
For many youth, something to do was an attraction. One may interpret this factor to be
puzzling —would students be just as interested in joining if YFSP was not the program
offered and another was presented? Through observation and subsequent data collection,
other factors contributed to initial YFSP involvement. Although youth may have said the
project gave them something to do, they also communicated other motivating factors,
including the opportunity to make money, garden and spend time with friends. Youth are
not mandated to participate in organized activities. Spending time with friends or other
social activities after-school could take precedence over participating in YF SP. Students
saw the inherent possibilities of participating in YFSP. Some cited it as something to do
and the importance in participating in a group activity. I

Even though YFSP was grounded in providing low-income communities with
increased access to fresh produce, it was apparent youth participated beyond reason of
helping others. Contrary to Joselowsky (2007), the over arching theme of helping others
was not highlighted by participants as a reason for joining or staying involved in YFSP.
Serow (1991) studied college student motivation to participate in service learning
initiatives with 80% noting helping others as important. Perhaps participant age and lack
of initial program understanding attributed to YFSP participants not citing helping others

and involvement in community as engaging factors. Conversely, coordinators

99

communicated that youth understood the impact they made in the community and as a
result of YFSP, participants are now more active in respective neighborhoods.

As Pearce and Larson (2006) explained, participants join projects for inherently
different reasons by which they engaged. Their research on youth action was designed
using Ryan and Deci’s (2002) self-determination theory. Pearce and Larson (2006)
suggested motivation to engagement as represented by a continuum of amotivation to
intrinsically motivate. Moving along the continuum highlights the processes of youth
motivation to engagement in organized activities. Although participants in the Pearce and
Larson study made a continual movement from motivation to engagement, YFSP
participants did not make such strides in comparison. YFSP students joined for several
different reasons, including opportunities to earn money. As an extrinsic motivator, and
classiﬁed as a reward, the opportunity to make money is externally regulated and
completed to satisfy an external demand. Very few students joined solely as an earning
opportunity, yet almost each student mentioned the possibility participation could result
in proﬁt earning. As the season went on, participants did not realize earning potential, yet
youth continued for the fun the project was providing. Earning potential was not realized
for participants, yet youth continued involvement for the fun the project was providing.
Harackiewicz and Sansone (2000) determined extrinsic motivators (ex. rewards) can
simultaneously initiate processes that result in greater intrinsic or extrinsic motivation,
depending on the activity or the individual. Although students were not earning monetary
rewards, other intrinsically motivating factors such as fun and enjoyment occurred.

Students interested in the project for the inherent beneﬁts provided to them can be

seen along the continuum as identiﬁed regulation. Still motivated for personal goals, such

100

as state FF A ofﬁcer or possibility of adding to college applications and resumes,
participants show a higher degree of autonomy towards the project. This is understood for
students who joined the project for the fun and enjoyment and who saw the personal
beneﬁts gained through participation.

Ryan and Deci (2000) explain integrated regulation as the most autonomous and
self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. Integrated regulation is understood by one’s
personal goals and outcomes aligning with the values and goals of the project in question.
From the YFSP, expression of such regulation was not found in the data and thus this
stage of the continuum did not result. However, youth did experience enjoyment from the
project and as deﬁned by Ryan and Deci (2000), intrinsic motivation resulted. Although
youth moved along the continuum, to what degree regulation and self-determination
resulted can not be concluded from the study. The difﬁculty in interviewing adolescents
is the visible cause of not fully understanding youth movement from motivation to
engagement, in the context of Ryan and Deci’s (2002) self-determination theory. Lack of
in-depth conversations resulting in vague participant details attribute to this problem.
Bassett et al. (2008) also found difficulty engaging students in conversation beyond one
or two word answers.

Outside of explaining YFSP as something to do and something to have fun with,
youth had difﬁculties clearly articulating reasons for continued participation. Although
students did not express cause for engagement, it does not indicate youth engagement
failed. Moreover, the research determined each participant completing both interviews
engaged in the project. Even though two students sporadically participated, comments

revealed certain proponents as engaging. Vandell et al. (1999) noted intrinsically

101

motivating factors of fun, enjoyment and interest contributed to youth engagement.
Similar results found YFSP participants ﬁnding personal engagement in the project were
intrinsically motivated by fun, enjoyment, and interest in activities. Providing enjoyable
activities, such as gardening, managing farm stand, and interacting with friends indicated
youth took pleasure in their work and continued participating in such efforts. Jones &
Hill (2003) also found spending time with ﬁiends was a social motivator to participate in
after-school activities. With the apparent factor of spending time with friends and
socializing while having fun, YFSP participants proved participation was beyond rewards
gained or beneﬁts sought. One may consider project content would not matter, as some
youth would participate anyways because of the ‘something to do’ aspect the project
offered. However, the gardening component proved as an additional reward for many
youth, especially those with prior experience or vested interest.

Ryan and Deci (2000) state intrinsic motivation is attributed to need for autonomy
and competence. A foundational proponent of YFSP was its natural inclination as a
youth-driven initiative with support and guidance from caring adults. Coordinators
encouraged youth participation in the decision making process. Youth expressed
satisfaction in ability to express Opinions and take project ownership. This youth-driven
model was acknowledged by Carlson (1998) and Pearce, Larson and Walker (2005) as
most effective in creating youth-adult partnerships. YFSP adapted this style of
programming and youth appreciated opportunity to make decisions. Through
observations, it became evident youth took signiﬁcant pride in their work and their
perceived actions showed ownership. This competence and autonomy contributed to

levels of engagement in project activities. Similarly, Deci and Flaste (1995) concluded

102

when one is autonomous they are willing to do what they are doing and they embrace the
activity with a sense of interest and commitment. Interest was noted during farm stand
activities and youth identiﬁed ownership with activities they were in charge of. For
example, Duffy youth felt ownership in making and providing salsa for sale at weekly
farm stands. Perceived competence in performing this task excited participation and made
youth feel connected to YFSP.

Participation and activity choice were enjoyable aspects of YF SP. By making
participation voluntary, youth experienced choice resulting in alleviated pressures of
having to complete tasks. The non-regimented schedule provided ﬂexibility and choice in
activities. The degree of choice each site gave youth varied, yet each offered some
selection in activities. This choice may have attributed to overall youth satisfaction.
Carter and Nelson (1984) suggest an important part of participating in an activity is the
youth’s responsibility in choosing the action in which to take part. Youth enjoyed project
aspects in which they had choice. Further determination in completing the project may
have stemmed from the importance they felt in the project and its ownership. Ryan and
Deci ( 1985) suggested this to be true —people persist at activities that provide them
opportunity to make choices and control their own outcomes. This proved correct in
YFSP. Youth desired choice and continued participation, recognizing importance in
project completion.

A main component of farm stand activities was gardening. Youth planned,
planted and maintained a garden through the growing season. For many youth
opportunity to garden enhanced motivation to participate and further engaged them in the

project. Additionally, youth with gardening experience felt existing skills would beneﬁt

103

participation and some expressed growing as something they were good at. Adolescents
often participate in activities because they feel competent and related experience may
beneﬁt the given tasks. For youth with gardening experience, the chance to Show others
their skills and use already gained ability to succeed in the project was a noted factor by
those youth with gardening knowledge. Patrick et al. (1999) identiﬁed similar ﬁndings —
youths’ perceptions of what they are good at attribute to commitment and involvement in
activities. Conversely, even youth without prior gardening experience showed interest in
this component. It is not accurate to attest YFSP only attracted youth with prior
gardening experience. Importantly, gardening and seeing plants grow and ﬂourish
recruited participants. Youth enjoyed opportunity to learn and interact in the garden.
Although youth faced participation barriers and some did not complete the
project, interviews and observations attest each participant engaged in some project
aspect. Different reasons emerged for initial participation in YFSP. Factors inﬂuencing
engagement varied across youth and sites. Results showed only two students not happy
with the project outcomes —one monetary barrier and the other difﬁculty with the
coordinator. Overall, youths’ positive recollections of farm stand activities and evidence
of engagement highlighted the desire to participate in a community-based food systems
initiative. Participants’ lack of expression over helping others and providing produce for
low-income communities identiﬁes a gap between program recruitment and program
objectives. Examining results recognized this gap and although assumptions drawn from
youth showed they did not fully understand the program objectives at the beginning, a
conclusive statement is not possible. From the researcher’s perspective, if coordinators

more adequately communicated project objectives to youth, participants may have

104

recognized the impact they were making on communities and resource-depleted
neighborhoods. In the future, better articulation of objectives to youth during recruitment
may connect participants to the impact they are making through their involvement.

Motivation, including gardening, earning money, and spending time with ﬁiends
initially captured youth participation. Although half of original youth faced participation
barriers, second interviews and observations indicated sustained engagement resulted
when youth felt project commitment and ownership and were interested in project
activities. These noted engagement factors may positively encourage youth development
and support sustained involvement in after-school activities. Without supportive
environments, youth do not have potential to gain beneﬁcial skills. As evidence shows,
YFSP was an after-school community-based project providing youth opportunities to
inﬂuence their future successes.

Theoretical Implications

Pearce & Larson (2006) reported youth reluctantly participate in the beginning of
projects in which they are mandated to participate. By interacting and participating in the
project, “Youth Action” students engaged for reasons beyond having to participate; even
though mandatory involvement ended after three months. Pearce and Larson explained
this phenomenon using Ryan & Deci’s self-determination theory suggesting motivation
to engagement can be seen through a continumn from amotivation to intrinsic motivation,
with each level more engaging. Mandated participation in YFSP was not required and
therefore movement along the continuum was not as dominant. Initially youth were more

motivated by extrinsic factors, such as earning money and receiving class credit.

105

However, at project end, participants expressed continued participation for enjoyable
activities and spending time with friends.

In addition, one of the dominant themes communicated by youth and coordinators
was YFSP emerged as something to do. This was a different ﬁnding from Pearce &
Larson (2006) and perhaps this explains why youth may not have moved noticeably
along the motivational continuum. Further, because the program was not mandatory and
barriers prevented continued participation for over half of the initial students, engagement
at different levels was not noted. More precisely, most students were extrinsically
motivated at the beginning, but at the end they were intrinsically engaged by the social
interactions and fun that was happening.

Pearce & Larson (2006) found the self-determination theory adequate in deﬁning
youth motivation to engagement. Even though YFSP did not exhibit the same degree of
movement, self-determination theory has potential to inﬂuence other studies as a lens to
capture youth moving towards sustained engagement. Particular challenges face low-
income communities and some of these barriers were noted during the study, including,
transportation, family commitments, and program change. Similar to ﬁndings by Lauver
et al. (2004), program ﬂexibility allows for increased youth participation. By promoting
this ﬁnding to other such programs, program developers can enhance probability of
continued participation leading to sustained engagement.

Unanticipated Findings

Although YFSP was in its second year, it was in its ﬁrst full-year of operation

beyond the pilot. Relatively new, YFSP introduced youth to a community-based food

system while exposing them to an entrepreneurship experience. Founded in nutrition

106

education, project objectives may have skewed emphasizing a more entrepreneurial
experience than originally planned by the campus team. A positive attribute portrayed by
YF SP creators was advocacy for no prescribed steps in implementing the program in
communities. Although limited boundaries offer ﬂexibility and ability for communities to
identify important project aspects, it also gives opportunity for loss of intended
objectives. Related to motivation and engagement, it may be that earning potential was
cited by so many youth as motivation to join because it was emphasized during
recruitment. Attraction to earning opportunities is a natural inclination for people,
especially youth. By instilling nutrition education as the project foundation and not
promoting earning potential youth motivation results may change. With lack of prior
research, the researcher did not anticipate opportunity to make money as a dominant
theme throughout the project; however, this unanticipated ﬁnding attempts to suggest
ways not to recruit youth.

The researcher did not anticipate lack of continued participation from project start
to ﬁnish. Barriers faced by participants, especially those of at-risk youth were not
predicted by the project coordinators or the researcher. Because the project was new,
these barriers were unanticipated and impacted the overall project outcomes and study
ﬁndings. Transportation and personal family commitments were barriers beyond project
scope. These ﬁndings suggest youth participation is sometimes not an individual’s
decision.

Research design focused on evaluating participation from start to ﬁnish; however,
many youth sporadically participated or did not complete the project. The researcher at

the beginning of the project did not consider this unforeseen obstacle. Through

107

qualitative methods, design was altered and research was adapted and changed to best
answer the research questions. Although unpredicted, these ﬁndings draw conclusive
results about participation barriers that were not expected at the project onset. The
ﬁndings may Show the number of youth discontinuing does not indicate they never
engaged, it better outlines barriers faced to continue involvement.
Implications for Practice

Through the study and yielded results, several implications for practice emerge
with application for use in future farm stand projects and work with youth and
community food systems. By examining trends materializing from results and
implementing change, the CS. Mott Group can improve the farm stand project and
continue developing youth-driven collaborations surrounding community food systems.
Many ﬁndings indicate YFSP positively impacts youth, adults, and low-income
communities across Michigan. Results show potential to foster ﬁrrther development and
inﬂuence more youth and engage more communities in food systems work. Implementing
improvements may enhance the project and impact youth motivation and engagement.

Understanding project objectives and articulating them during youth recruitment
is important to ensure youth understand the positive impacts their involvement has for
personal grth and community enhancement. Having clear objectives rather than
broadly describing the project can entice youth making them more aware of their role and
the beneﬁts offered through involvement. By understanding objectives youth may be
inﬂuenced by the proposed outcomes and continue participation beyond a couple of
meetings or irregularly throughout the summer. Developing goals and expectations,

students have opportunity to gauge interest and continue involvement realizing their

108

stated outcomes. Although not always feasible, involving youth in the action planning
process, contributes to early exposure of objectives and funding expectations may
embrace students’ interest and increase engagement.

Although one aspect of farm stand project is the opportunity to participate in an
entrepreneurial experience, coordinators should avoid promoting monetary gain through
participation. Rather than recruiting youth with intent to earn money, highlighting skills
and connections youth may gain is more appropriate and better aligns with program
objectives. Such examples include teamwork, leadership, community involvement and
transferable job skills. Such job skills can provide resume additions. If proﬁts are made,
providing youth a portion may act as a reward for their efforts and act as a pleasant
surprise. By not guaranteeing earning potential, youth do not have preconceived ideas
about making money and therefore enroll in the project for other possible beneﬁts.

Evidence from the study indicates youth desire decision making authority
contributing to project ownership and sustained engagement. Working together and
making group decisions encourages participation making youth feel connected to group
impacts and project outcomes. By allowing youth input and supporting ideas, participants
engage and strive for project commitment not to miss out on opportunities. Even though
youth desire to make decisions, they understand the authority coordinators have and
appreciate the ﬂexibility provided. Beyond YFSP, decision-making and ownership are
important aspects to youth development and should be encouraged through other youth
programming initiatives.

An emerging theme throughout the project was inconsistent and sporadic

participation, including youth not ﬁnishing the project. Although motivated, barriers

109

beyond their control forced youth to discontinue participating. While youth may have
wanted to continue participating, obstacles prevented participation and hindered sustained
engagement. Low and inconsistent participation is often reality for many after-school
programs. This is more prevalent in low-income communities (Berkeley Policy
Associates, 2005). At times participation in YFSP was sparse. Projects were grounded in
resource-depleted neighborhoods resulting in transportation barriers, conﬂicting
schedules and other pressing commitments. Ensuring farm stand projects are ﬂexible and
willing to adapt to participants needs is crucial to encourage participation and sustained
engagement. Without ﬂexibility, youth feel pressure to attend regularly and thus fail to
remain active because of added commitment demands. If YFSP coordinators better
understood commitment barriers to adjust programming, more participants may join the
project. Providing learning opportunities at each meeting ensures youth have access to
valuable information even if they discontinue.

Continually checking youth interest and engagement in activities makes certain
coordinators are providing signiﬁcant opportunity for youth to engage in opportunities
they ﬁnd interesting and meaningful to future ambitions. When coordinators are more
aware of student interest, whether it is gardening, cooking, or farm stand management,
they have ability to cater programming fostering project engagement. One of the
prominent themes in the study was youths’ desire to spend time with friends and have
fun. Ensuring a balance between learning and social interactions may encourage student
participation to retain participants. With little access to friends outside school hours,

programs like YFSP offers an appropriate means to interact socially.

110

 

The study found youth were motivated for a variety of different reasons. These
motivating factors Show YFSP offered diverse opportunities and youth see the project in
multiple ways. Such ways include social opportunities, participating in gardening and
farm stand activities and as something to do. The diversity offered by YFSP should be
maintained to encourage a varied group of student participants. A variety of interests
makes the project unique and offers interaction between students with dissimilar interests,
yet ability to work on a common community project. Reasons for engagement also
varied, yet an overwhelming majority of students noted a commitment to the project an
opportunity to interact with peers. Keeping YFSP community-based while promoting to
diverse youth audiences will contribute to project success and allow youth to interact
with those they do not normally associate with. Other youth programs can learn from
YFSP model by incorporating diverse youth interests to make a successful community-
based project surrounding gardening and food systems. The model also promotes youth
involvement and networking with local farmers for produce procurement and marketing.
Further interactions result from networking with farm stand customers during market
days. These opportunities provide youth valuable skills and impact their personal
development. Such skills and opportunities attribute to the YFSP project model.
Replication through other food system initiatives should be recognized.

Additional Research & Conclusion

Interacting with youth can be challenging, especially when conducting in-depth
interviews. Beyond scheduling, if youth do not provide adequate conversation, data can
be limited. Some of the data proved limiting because youth were not conversational

during some parts of the interviews. However, emerging data provided adequate

111

information to inform the research questions. By considering other collection methods,
such as surveys, researchers may build on data collected through YFSP sites in 2006—07.
Rather than asking youth in-depth questions, using this year’s data, one can design
surveys to collect similar ﬁndings by asking closed-ended questions. Further, the entire
YFSP participant population could be included in the sample by using a less resource
demanding method. A sample of participants could still be interviewed to provide in-
depth dialogue not obtainable through closed-ended questions. Surveying, observing and
interviewing youth may better represent the youth sample and encourage data
triangulation.

Although it was concluded that youth engaged in farm stand project, the study
design did not examine intermittent project points to better decide the extent at which
youth engaged. The two interviews, one at the beginning and one at the conclusion did
not observe the students who did not sustain engagement. Even though coordinators were
interviewed and provided perspective on students who did not sustain participation, it
was difﬁcult to understand engaging project activities. More intermittent and less
extensive data collections would allow researchers to better gauge motivation and
engagement in YFSP. More frequent participatory observations and opportunities to
interact with youth may provide further observation notes reﬂecting project engagement
and prove students moved along the continuum of motivation to engagement.

Further research should build on the study conducted this year. By using results
to guide research questions researchers can develop areas that best suit the needs of the
CS. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems and the YFSP organizers. Recruitment

efforts and retention success can be inﬂuenced by the ﬁndings of the study.

112

Recommendations and further programming can be integrated to meet students’ needs.
YFSP has the potential to reach a greater number of youth and impact their present and
future work in their communities and the food system. More importantly, by ﬁnding
opportunities to motivate and engage youth, sustained participation may lead to positive

development while enhancing skills beneﬁting future success and commitment.

113

 

APPENDIX A

lst Interview Guide - Students

1.

Can you explain how you heard about the youth farm stand project?

You mentioned you heard about the project through a (leader/friend).
Can you recall what they said about the project?

I want to understand more about how the farm stand project was advertised; can
you explain how the project was presented?

2. Think back to the ﬁrst time you became involved with the project, can you

explain what happened? Perhaps you can tell me about how you got involved?

First you heard about the project, then you...

You mentioned an inﬂuential (activity, event, person). Let’s talk more
about this. Can you recall the activity or conversation?

What attracted you to get involved with the youth farm stand project? Were
there particular things that sounded interesting or fun?

What were your initial thoughts about the project?

I’d like to understand more about the youth farm stand project that you’ve been
involved with, can you describe the project for me?

The project is designed to last through the fall; can you talk me through the
plans for the remainder of the project?

. All the activities sound like a lot of work, can you tell me about how the

responsibilities are divided?

To help you, maybe you want to think about the meetings you have been having
and tell me about who has been doing what.

The activities you have been doing sound really great, I’d like to know more
about how the group decides on the activities. Can you tell me about how the
group decided on (use a mentioned example/activity)

114

 

APPENDIX B

2"" Interview Guide - Students

1.

I’d like to understand more about the youth farm stand project that you were
involved with this past year. Can you start from the beginning and tell me about
the project?

a. What were some of the activities that you have done throughout the year?
b. How were the decisions made amongst the group?

c. What role did the advisor take in this project?

(1. How did you feel about the structure of the project? (why)

Thinking back to the start of the project, can you remember why you joined? In
other words, what interested you in the project?

a. Throughout the project, did these interests remain?
b. What other parts of the project inﬂuenced your decision to remain a part
of the youth farms stand project?

During the course of the year, how were you involved in the project?

a. What was your role in the project?
b. What were your responsibilities?

Are there things that surprised you about the project? Or more precisely, what
happened during the project that you did not expect?

a. Think about skills that you developed
b. What about the people in the project (other students, community members,
advisors)?

Now that the project is ﬁnishing for this year, what have you experienced?

a. What have you gained through your participation?
b. What has disappointed you through the project?
c. How did you change your diet preferences?

A lot of other activities are offered through the summer. Can you tell me what
kept you coming to the youth farm stand project?

a. Did these reasons change from the beginning of the project until now?

115

7. Thinking about the project for next year, are there things that you would change
or make different?

a. What did you like about the project?
b. What were some of the obstacles that you faced (individually and as a

group)?

116

APPENDIX C

Interview Guide for Coordinators (Motivation & Engagement)

1.

You had a variety of youth engaged in the project. Talk about the youth who
participated in your project — background, interests, group they were afﬁliated
with, etc.?

Thinking back to your initial work with the project, can you explain how you
recruited the youth who participated in the YFSP?

What incentives, if any, did you communicate to the youth?
Throughout the project, how did you retain the participants?
What obstacles/challenges did you face in retaining youth?
How did you continue to recruit throughout the project?

9.0 .ch

. I understand that some of your youth did not complete the project. From your

perceptions and from what the youth communicated to you, can you talk about
their reasons?

I’d like to understand the youth motivation for participation. What do you think
the reasons were for your youth to participate in the YFSP?

a. Can you comment on their initial motivation and how it changed from the
beginning of the project until the end of the project (if it did)?

How did you engage them in different activities and how do you feel they were
engaged?

a. What aspects of the project do you think that the youth were most engaged
with?

b. What parts of the project were least engaging?

c. Can you explain the initiative of the participants? Comment on their
initiative to take control of the project and make it their own (self-
directive)

Are there key components of the project that motivated and engaged your
students throughout the project that you would suggest using in future
years?

a. Now that the project is coming to a close for this year, can you offer
suggestions on how to motivate and engage students next year

117

dozmosc £0388 one .35
82: 53mg 9 pom: 803 mecca 080m :2: Bo Z dommmsommw was 3.38 05 E 8% 05 9 838 .85 mm a8 2: we motowouwo .8525
:83on 05 :23 8538 8a a2 05 so 8:85 2: .3383 5338 05 .5265 9o; 8 3m: 25:8 choo 2: $5832:

 

X £5an DES”.
X cosmtommﬁwcr
wcuoﬁmﬁ 98% ES”—
moE§EEoo mama—om
Eoﬁﬁﬁﬁou
332683 E owﬁﬁo
X X 89:08??? wctmu
ocean—wok

X was—«E =228Q
m=§m use 235:8 833m
gee ease: mesmeoﬁem
wEEEmG

.888 Emu 3 028:0

Ed wig:

ow 8 wﬁﬁoﬁom

XXX

X

XX XX X
XXXXX

118

 

musizuﬁeu
neuaéztam 3 9.3.2.5 .uoﬁowawnm ceﬁﬁmam .835 «Eacqam £2. 33831

 

wagon MESS 2: S 3233 we mmsmﬁéam 38 352: «Stacie ﬁxcmwmxtxe 2.235 33925
”O 2an

G X—n—Zm—mm<

mm"; 8 85008800 5:50: 008.: m:_>_:5 0 :05 :050: 00:0: 0 m0 500: 0: »08 5:80:00 w:_::0m 00:80:00 808:0 :050 :0 0:00.: 5:0 »0:08 8308 .8 0:008
:w:0:5 5:0» wig—:00: 580 55:05 89055800 0:85 05 :_ 805080500 50.8880 :50 »05 »0:08 0508 5:0» 30.: .3005 :0>0 .8530: .00» 88800
0 w::>0: 0.23 »0:08 800 0: »03 0 m0 808:0 05 :_0_. 0: 50:03:08 0:03 5:0» »=0_:_:_ 0052080 .»0:08 800 0: 00:050. 0805 05. 3:080:05 »0:08—85

 

0:800: :050 8.:
::080m0w:0 50:50:80
500» 8050080
:0 003 88:00
$00550. .8088
05 0: 80858800
20.: 5:0 0055500
05 50880 »05
000000: 0:008:80
0: 5008800 5:0»
0508 003 »0:08

05:: :0:? .0m0>

»0:08 88:00

8 50:00:08: :50 0:03
5:0» 20.: 080m 80.:
w:_>0: 05:3 05:05
53 08:: 5:000

0: »000: 0:03 5:0

05 8 :0: »0:08 0:08
0: m:_::_w0: 05 :0
50:03:08 0:03 5:0»
50000808 88085800
0800 5:0 :00 8:0

:< .0500: 85 m8?
080580 50:88:

»05 5:0 £08800

05 :08 »0:08 ::00 0:

.088 8.: »::8_:0
0:0: 003 »0:08
8208 5:0 .8088
05 00 300000 :050
0: 5088800 0:03
080505 05:05,:
53 08:: 85:000.
5:0 :5 w8>0s

00 ::0:0 $00000
808:0 w:_w0w:0
:050 5000088
»0:08 00:08 :0: 55

08080800 808:0
w::w0w:0 00 50:0:
0:03 5:0:m 8:0,: 05 :0
w:5_83 5:0 w:::05:0w
”»0:08 00.08

0: 8500:0500 0:03
080580 ::0:0000 :0:
003 :0 @8000: 5:000:
8 00:0:00800 50305

»0:08

0:08 0: 80:8

2:: 5:3 so: :8

55 080530 20:00

< 08080800

:050 8 50:00:08:
0:03 ::0 »0:08 00:08
0: »03 0 m0 808:0
05 5088058.
080580 .8 00553.08
0:0. 808:0 05
88:0» 8.: 8:03:08
»:08_:0 0 :0:

003 :_ 03800:: :0 00
50:00:58 003 »0:08
.3005? »0:08

 

w:_::5 »0:08 00:08 »03 0 00 82085800 5:0 »=0=c0 50535 0:3 000:9 ._0_::0:00 ::00 0: 00:0:0 »0:02

0: 3888000 300 05 »0 5005850 0: 0: 8.88 »:0 w:_::00 5080:8008 0 w80: 00 5005850 ::0”:—

m:0m_>50 5:0 58> 003 808:0 0:: 80 500: 0 :_0.: 080505 080530 30 0 0:03 0:02.08 :82 0: 028:0
83085800 3:055... 5:05.50

»888am

5:3 30:38::—

0:0_:0>..03O 5:3 N 3038::—

5:3 0 30:38::—

 

m— X—GZH00<

00:88 50:20.50 .3008008U

Nm: 2%:

119

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed
deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 92-98.

Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and
enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34, 915-922.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bartko, W. T. (2005). The ABCs of engagement in out-of-school-time programs. New
Directions for Youth Development, 2005(105), 109-120.

Bassett, R., Beagan, B., Ristovski-Slijepcevic, S., & Chapman, G. (2008). Tough teens:
The methodological challenges of interviewing teenagers as research participants.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(1 19), 1 19-131.

Batson, C. D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social
Psychology, 20, 603-610.

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 11 7,
497-529.

Berkeley Policy Associates. (2005). What do we know about afterschool opportunities for
children and youth ﬁom low-income families? Where should we go from here?
(ED-Ol-CO-OOI 1). Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Blyth, D., Hill, J ., & Thiel, K. (1982). Early adolescents' signiﬁcant others: Grade and
gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults
and young people. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 11, 425-450.

Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F ., Villarruel, F. A., & Stone, M. R. (2005). To participate or
not participate: That is the question. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 1 05(Spring 2005), 33-49.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

Carlson, S. (1998). Learning by doing and the youth-driven model. Retrieved May 30,
2007, from http://www.fourh.umn.edu/resources/center/PDF/Center—Story8.pdf

120

Carter, R. I., & Nelson, A. B. (1984). Participation in FF A and self—perceptions of

personal development. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators
in Agriculture, 25(3), 39-44.

Chandler, C. L., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Children's intrinsic, extrinsic and internalized
motivation: A developmental study of children's reasons for liked and disliked
behaviors. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5 (357-3 65).

Cocciarelli, S., & Reardon, E. (2006). The Michigan Youth Farm Stand Project:
Connecting the food we eat with where it 's grown and made available. East
Lansing, MI: The C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning:
Beneﬁcial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conﬂict and growth in the
teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of ﬂow in everyday life.
Developmental Perspectives on Motivation.

Danner, F. W., & Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the effects of
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 52, 1043-1052.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal aﬂective determinants of
behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington: D.C. Health and
Company.

Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a ﬁmction of

negative feedback and threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological
Association, Boston.

Deci, E. L., & F laste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R, & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

121

 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.

Dworkin, J. B., Larson, R. W., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents' accounts of growth
experiences in youth activities'. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1), 17-26.

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9, 30-
44.

Eccles, J .S, & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching

band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent
Research, 14(1), 10-43.

Eccles, J. S., Wigﬁeld, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon
& N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (5 ed., pp. 1017-1095). New York: John Wiley &
Sons

Eyler, J. (2002). Reﬂection: Linking service and learning; Linking students and
communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.

Ferrari, T. M., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Jesseson, K. (2003). Hours of opportunity or
hours of risk: What are early adolescents doing in their out-of-school time and

why is it important to know? Paper presented at the Extension Galaxy 11
Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.

Ferrari, T. M., & Turner, C. L. (2006). An exploratory study of adolescents' motivations
for joining and continued participation in a 4-H afterschool program. Journal of
Extension, 44(4).

Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental inﬂuences on adolescent
involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, I 0,
29-48.

Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld-Liro, C. J ., Hruda, L. 2., Eccles, J. 8., Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. M.
(2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents' commitment to athletics and the
arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1 7(1), 68-97.

Garrett, S., & F eenstra, G. (n.d.). Growing a community food system. Davis, California:
University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program.

122

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An
experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(890-898).

Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic
motivation, and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Pers
Soc Psychol Bull, 27(6), 643-650.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (2000). Controversies and new directions - Is it deja
vu all over again? In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San
Diego: Academic Press.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673-685.

Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In E. M. Hetherington
(Ed.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social
development 0101. 4, pp. 275-386). New York: Wiley.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Heller, M. (2006). Food connections: Capital area community food profile. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.

Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic
factors on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp.
309-339). San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A
critical issue for the let century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-
1 79.

Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2000). Motivational science: The nature and
functions of wanting. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational

science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 1-20). Philadelphia: Psychology
Press.

Huebner, A. J ., & Mancini, J. A. (2003). Shaping structured out-of-school time use
among youth: The effects of self, family, and friend systems. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 32(6), 453.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the role of choice: A cultural

perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(349-3 66).

123

Jacob, F. (1973). The logic of life: The history of heredity. New York: Pantheon.

Jones, S. R., & Hill, K. E. (2003). Understanding patterns of commitment: Student

motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education,
74(5), 516-539.

Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth engagement, high school reform, and improved learning
outcomes: Building systemic approaches for youth engagement. NASSP Bulletin,
91 (25 7).

Kleiber, D., & Powell, G. (2005). Historical Change in Leisure Activities During After-
School Hours In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized
activities as contexts of development: Extra-curricular activities, after-school and
community programs New York: Routledge.

Kraft, R. J. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects.
Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 131-159.

Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183.

Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring.
Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 677-689.

Larson, R., Hansen, D., & Walker, K. (2005). Everybody's gotta give: Development of
initiative and teamwork within a youth program. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development:
Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 159-183).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Larson, R., Walker, K., & Pearce, N. (2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-
driven youth programs: Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of
Community Psychology, 33(1), 57-74.

Lauver, S. C., & Little, P. M. (2005). Recruitment and retention strategies for out-of-

school-time programs. New Directions for Youth Development, 105(Spring ), 71 -
89.

Lauver, S. C., Little, P. M., & Weiss, H. (2004). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting
and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Issues and
opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 7(6). Retrieved January 18, 2008
www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/projects/aﬁerschool/resources/issuebrief6.html

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult

surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (479-486).

124

Lepper, M.R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning "play" into "work" and "work" into
"play": 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C.
Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The
search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.

Luken, S. (2002). Exploring engagement with youth organizations: an initial step: Centre
of Excellence for Youth Engagement.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early
school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized activities as
developmental contexts for children and adolescents. In J. L. Mahoney, R. Larson
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development:
Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 3-22).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Marckaz, M. S., Dworkin, J. B., Skuza, J ., & Beyer, J. (2006). What's up? What young
teens and parents want from youth programs. New Directions for Youth
Development, 112, 45-56.

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed. Vol.
41). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service: Determinants of
voluntary and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 32(1), 47.

McNeal, R. B. (1995). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of
Education, 68, 62-81.

Merton, R., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1990). The focused interview: A manual for
problems and procedures. (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Michigan Ag Council. (n.d.). Michigan’s Second Largest Industry: Growing, Strong,
Innovative. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://miagcouncil.org/.

Nakamura, J. (2001). The nature of vital engagement in adulthood. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 5-18.

Newmann, F. (1986). Priorities for the future: Toward a common agenda. Social
Education, 50, 240-250.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

125

Pancer, S., & Pratt, M. (1999). Social and family determinants of community service
involvement in Canadian youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Roots of Civic
Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pancer, S., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Loiselle, L. (n.d.). Youth conferences as a context for
engagement. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Centre of Excellence for Youth
Engagement.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A., Alfeld-Liro, C., Fredricks, J ., Hruda, L., & Eccles, J. (1999).
Adolescents' commitment to development talent: The role of peers in continuing
motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 741.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Pearce, N. J ., & Larson, R. (2006). How teens become engaged in youth development
programs: The process of motivational change in a civic activism organization.
Applied Developmental Science, 10(3), 121-131.

Pete, S. (2004). The circle as pedagogy: Creating authentic elder/youth engagement.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well-
Being.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student

motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667-686.

Plant, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-
consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of
internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53(435-449).

Quinn, J. (1999). Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early
teens. The Future of Children, 9(2), 96-116.

Raskoff, S. A., & Sundeen, R. A. (1999). Community service programs in high schools.
Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 73-111.

Rubin, H. J ., & Rubin, I . S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Russell, J ., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (n.d.). Schooling issues digest: Student

motivation and engagement Australian Government Department of Education,
Science and Training.

126

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the interpersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43(450-461).

Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the
self in psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (V 01. 40, pp. 1-56).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 5 7, 749-761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook
of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self
determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures.
In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 253-
272). New York: Guilford.

Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachments: Revisiting
the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adult. Child Development, 60, 340-356.

Saito, R. N. (2006). Beyond access and supply: Youth-led strategies to captivate young
people's interest in and demand for youth programs and opportunities. New
Directions for Youth Development, 2006 (112), 57-74.

Scott-Kantor, L. (2001). Community food security programs improve food access. Food
Review, 24(1), 20-26.

Serow, R. C. (1991). Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of community
service participants. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 543-556.

Serow, R. C., Ciechalski, J ., & Daye, C. (1990). Students as volunteers: Personal

competence, social diversity, and participation in community service. Urban
Education, 25(2), 1 57-168.

127

Shemoff, D. J ., & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Engagement in after-school program activities:
Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth
Adolescence.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.

Strong, R., Silver, H., & Robinson, A. (1995). What do students want? Educational
Leadership, 53, 8-12.

The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. (2004). Vision: Youth Engagement.
Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://www.engagementcentre.ca/vision.php.

The City of Calgary. (2004). A guide to youth friendly practices. Retrieved January 20,
2008 from http://www.ca1gary.ca/docgallery/bu/cns/cys _guide.pdf.

Thomas, E. (2007). Student engagement and learning in a community-based arts
classroom. Teachers College Record, 109(3).

Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan's Self-determination theory: A view from the
hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry,
11(4), 312-318.

Vandell, D. L., Shemoff, D. J ., Pierce, K. M., Bolt, D. M., Dadisman, K., & Brown, B. B.
(2005). Activities, engagement, and emotion in after-school programs (and
elsewhere). New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 121-129.

Walker, J. A. (2006). Intentional youth programs: Taking theory to practice. New
Directions for Youth Development, 2006 (112), 75-92.

Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2005). More than just being there:
Balancing the participation equation. New Directions for Youth Development,
2005(105), 15-31.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Yeung, M. (2007). Youth engagement in Canada. Ontario, Canada: University of
Toronto, Meal Exchange.

Youniss, J ., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1985). The development of "intrinsic" motivation: A social learning
analysis (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

128

   

uliljjjjilgtjijm:1ij