Understanding Constraints Younger Youth Face in Engaging as Volunteers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many nonprofit organizations needing volunteers struggle to find individuals who can provide the hours of support their programs, services, and events need (Urban Institute, 2004). Researchers have recognized the contribution of youth volunteers and have examined various aspects of youth volunteer experiences to better understand them (e.g., Hall, McKeown, & Roberts, 2001). Much of the research has focus on those 13 and older, however, youth between the ages of 8 and 12 (younger youth) have been overlooked. Research shows that younger youth do volunteer (Grimm, Dietz, Spring, Arey, & Foster-Bey, 2005), but little is known about the experiences they have. The purpose of this study was to explore constraints younger youth face and ways in which these constraints are negotiated. Using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, data were collected from 73 youth volunteers (31 males; 42 females) ages 8 to 12 and 7 Executive Directors from Boys and Girls Clubs (BGC) in Atlantic Canada. The findings indicated that attitudes of adults in the community toward younger youth can limit the volunteer opportunities that are welcoming for this age group, affect younger youths’ perception of their abilities, and influence their enjoyment of the volunteer experience. The important roles facilitators played in younger youths’ access to and enjoyment of volunteer experiences was evident. Youth leaders can help younger youth overcome constraints by ensuring that youth are matched with volunteer tasks that are appropriate for their skill set, are adequately prepared for the tasks and situations that may arise while performing their tasks, participate in tasks with friends, and have chances to discuss their volunteer experiences. Parents can also support involvement through preparing their child for, and debriefing volunteer experiences. Forming partnerships with organizations that need volunteers may be helpful in lessening some of the challenges youth leaders encounter when trying to facilitate volunteering experiences for younger youth. Efforts to educate the public about the abilities of younger youth to contribute to their community may be important in shifting attitudes and increasing the welcoming opportunities available.?
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».