Teaching personal and social responsibility in afterschool programming and beyond
Schools continue to become more diverse though teachers and afterschool program coordinator are unprepared to work in such settings. The teaching personal and social responsibility model (Hellison, 2011) serves as a tool to guide practitioners and teacher through the process of developing culturally responsive pedagogies, providing positive social and emotional learning experiences for youth, and guiding participants through the process of applying knowledge learned in the model’s setting to alternative environments such as during the school day or at home. The first study utilized the culturally relevant physical education model and occupational socialization theory as tools to understand how preservice teachers may address their previous life experiences during their professional socialization. The purpose of the first study was to understand the ways in which socialization experiences influenced the development of culturally relevant physical education through the teaching personal and social responsibility model. Qualitative findings indicated that preservice teachers began to get to know their students, understand differences, and make efforts to connect with them. Suggestions are made regarding physical education teacher training in the future. The second study utilizes self-study of teacher education practice to understand a teaching personal and social responsibility practitioners’ experiences, along with occupational socialization theory. Results indicated that there was a high degree of initial frustration, but as relationships and experience developed over time, the practitioner grew to fully enjoy and utilize the model and value self-study. The purpose of the third study was to explore the social-institutional conditions and teacher and learning practices that guide their social-emotional learning and overall healthy development. Ethnographic findings indicated that the classroom context conflicted with afterschool program contexts, and that the school setting was predominantly needs-thwarting while the afterschool program was a needs-supporting environment.