Page 131 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 131
char acter strengths of first-year student teachers and the 5 cs ...
et al., 2010; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). The positive development that re-
sults from aligning young people’s strengths and positive, growth-promot-
ing resources in the ecology of youth can be operationalised with the “5 Cs”:
Competence refers to having a positive view of one’s actions in domain-spe-
cific areas, e.g. social, academic, vocational; Confidence means having an
internal sense of positive self-worth and self-efficacy; Character encom-
passes respect for social and cultural rules, standards of correct behaviour,
a sense of right and wrong; Caring means having a sense of sympathy and
empathy for others; Connection refers to having positive bonds with people
and institutions (Lerner et al., 2005).
These domains are interactive and adolescents need healthy develop-
ment in all domains (Dukakis et al., 2009). Although the 5 Cs were formu-
lated with a focus on measuring and explaining adolescent development,
they were not meant to be limited to this developmental period (Lerner et
al., 2005; Tolan et al., 2016).
Comparison of the Positive Psychology and Positive Youth
Development frameworks
A comparison of the Positive Psychology (PP) and PYD frameworks shows
the aim of each framework is the thriving of individuals (concentrating on
adolescents in PYD) and society. Both recognise the role of individuals’
(character) strengths that can be developed and promoted to achieve valu-
able outcomes like well-being, achievements and, finally, a contribution to
society. Park (2004, pp. 40-41) emphasised that in the PP framework, one
can find “a comprehensive scheme for understanding and promoting posi-
tive youth development” whose goal is to “build and strengthen assets that
enable youth to grow and flourish throughout life”. The PYD framework
(Lerner, 2007) is based on developmental systems theory and puts great-
er emphasis on the role of the growth-promoting resources in the ecolo-
gy of youth. While PP seeks to understand, describe and promote posi-
tive human experience, PYD promotes optimal human development with
intentional efforts to enhance young people and their interests, skills and
abilities (Tolan et al., 2016). Noting the evident common aspects in each
framework, we speculated that the theoretical and practical aspects of the
VIA Classification of character strengths, namely the core theme in PP,
could provide a new perspective for understanding the possible pathways
leading toward young people’s positive development by achieving the 5 Cs
of the PYD. To the best of our knowledge, no empirical study thus far has
131
et al., 2010; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). The positive development that re-
sults from aligning young people’s strengths and positive, growth-promot-
ing resources in the ecology of youth can be operationalised with the “5 Cs”:
Competence refers to having a positive view of one’s actions in domain-spe-
cific areas, e.g. social, academic, vocational; Confidence means having an
internal sense of positive self-worth and self-efficacy; Character encom-
passes respect for social and cultural rules, standards of correct behaviour,
a sense of right and wrong; Caring means having a sense of sympathy and
empathy for others; Connection refers to having positive bonds with people
and institutions (Lerner et al., 2005).
These domains are interactive and adolescents need healthy develop-
ment in all domains (Dukakis et al., 2009). Although the 5 Cs were formu-
lated with a focus on measuring and explaining adolescent development,
they were not meant to be limited to this developmental period (Lerner et
al., 2005; Tolan et al., 2016).
Comparison of the Positive Psychology and Positive Youth
Development frameworks
A comparison of the Positive Psychology (PP) and PYD frameworks shows
the aim of each framework is the thriving of individuals (concentrating on
adolescents in PYD) and society. Both recognise the role of individuals’
(character) strengths that can be developed and promoted to achieve valu-
able outcomes like well-being, achievements and, finally, a contribution to
society. Park (2004, pp. 40-41) emphasised that in the PP framework, one
can find “a comprehensive scheme for understanding and promoting posi-
tive youth development” whose goal is to “build and strengthen assets that
enable youth to grow and flourish throughout life”. The PYD framework
(Lerner, 2007) is based on developmental systems theory and puts great-
er emphasis on the role of the growth-promoting resources in the ecolo-
gy of youth. While PP seeks to understand, describe and promote posi-
tive human experience, PYD promotes optimal human development with
intentional efforts to enhance young people and their interests, skills and
abilities (Tolan et al., 2016). Noting the evident common aspects in each
framework, we speculated that the theoretical and practical aspects of the
VIA Classification of character strengths, namely the core theme in PP,
could provide a new perspective for understanding the possible pathways
leading toward young people’s positive development by achieving the 5 Cs
of the PYD. To the best of our knowledge, no empirical study thus far has
131
