‘We are all learning together’: how youth mentors perceive their role in an after-school program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After-school recreation programs often utilize sports and physical activity to engage youth in underserved communities. Furthermore, there has been a rise in the usage of peer leadership in recreation programs, especially in after-school settings. Research has demonstrated that peer leadership can be utilized effectively to accomplish programs. However, there is a lack of understanding of how peer leaders experience their mentor role and the mutual benefits they receive. As part of a larger, ongoing YPAR study, this research focused on an after-school recreation program in an underserved community. The program aims to provide an after-school recreational space for youth in the community where high school youth work as mentors. By developing authentic relationships through consistent year-long engagement, four mentors participated in multiple one-on-one interviews and a formal group interview to explore how they experienced their role within the program and how this role impacted other aspects in their lives. Additionally, informal conversations and observations collected throughout the YPAR process informed the data. Interpretive description was utilized to analyse the data and recontextualize how the mentors experienced their role within the program and their experiences living within their community. Positionality was consistently reflected during data generation and analysis, ensuring researchers acknowledged their role in the co-production of data with the mentors. Four key themes were constructed from the data: (1) contributing to safe space, (2) developing authentic relationships, (3) recognizing self-growth, and (4) identifying with kids’ experiences. The discussion addresses how peer leaders recognize the importance and impact of their role within the program and how this contributes positively to their self-image and sense of belonging within their community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".