ABSTRACT: In 2019 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expanded its youth program to include For the Strength of Youth (FSY) conferences, modeled after the former Especially for Youth (EFY) program. This study explores the teaching strategies and experiences of EFY session directors through a qualitative, phenomenological approach. Fifteen session directors were interviewed, and data analysis revealed twenty-five themes with five subthemes related to teaching practices, challenges, and success measures. The findings provide insights into teaching methods and offer practical recommendations for improving the FSY program, contributing to the field of religious education for youth.

KEYWORDS: Especially for Youth, For the Strength of Youth, teaching the gospel, religious education

Recent research in the Especially for Youth program serves as a valuable resource for religious educators aiming to make a positive impact on the lives of youth, enriching the broader field of moral, spiritual, and values-based education. Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

On July 19, 2019, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expanded its youth program[1] to include For the Strength of Youth (FSY) conferences in the United States and Canada. FSY, a five-day multistake youth conference held under the direction of Area Presidencies,[2] accommodates three hundred to fifteen hundred youth per session. The program offers enriching learning opportunities and uplifting social experiences to strengthen faith in Jesus Christ.[3] It is modeled after the former Especially for Youth (EFY) program organized in 1976 by Brigham Young University’s Division of Continuing Education as an education week for Latter-day Saint youth aged fourteen to eighteen.[4]

A key element of the EFY program was its classroom instruction, with each session offering over fifteen hours of instruction taught by EFY faculty.[5] Faculty members created their class outlines, which were reviewed by the Church’s Materials Evaluation Review Committee to ensure doctrinal purity and teaching quality. From this pool of faculty members, a session director was chosen for each session. These directors, considered the adult leaders of the EFY program, were responsible for teaching the youth multiple times throughout the week. The qualifications for becoming a session director were based on the number of years of experience as an EFY speaker and a record of consistently high-quality teaching.[6]

With the transition to FSY, session directors are now recommended by local area and regional directors from Seminaries and Institutes (S&I). These recommendations are handled by the Priesthood and Family Department of the Church. While the responsibilities and teaching loads of session directors have remained similar through the years,[7] the process of appointment has changed. In a typical EFY session, these directors taught seven fifty-minute lessons to large groups of three hundred to fifteen hundred participants, distinguishing these unique teaching experiences from those typical of other Church settings. By looking back to examine the session directors’ seasoned teaching methods for youth, we can identify key strategies that can help enhance the FSY program. These insights can inform seminary and institute teachers while supporting others in the Church who are dedicated to teaching youth, ensuring that the lessons learned from the past continue to shape and improve future teaching efforts.

While teaching youth has been explored broadly within the Church and in CES programs, there has been no focused research on the EFY program. To address this gap, a qualitative, phenomenological research approach was used to investigate the teaching strategies and practices of EFY session directors. The primary purpose of this research was to thoroughly investigate an area where little is known or where previous understanding appears inadequate.[8] A related purpose was to obtain an in-depth description of each session director’s perspective[9] to find the essence of selected aspects of their teaching experience.[10]

Interviews with fifteen past and present (at the time of the study) session directors, guided by four research questions, yielded helpful information and perspectives. Thirteen themes emerged in response to the first research question, “What teaching strategies and practices are employed by session directors of the Especially for Youth program?” These themes are plan and prepare, students share, use scriptures, narrative, music, humor, variety, invite to act, testimony, pivot and change plans, practices to avoid, pacing, and technology. Subthemes like emotionalism and mimicking (within “practices to avoid”) and media, presentation software, and mobile devices (within “technology”) further nuanced these findings.

The second research question, “What teaching challenges are faced by the session directors of the Especially for Youth program?” identified two significant hurdles: connectivity and fatigue. The third research question, “How do session directors of the Especially for Youth program measure their teaching success?” revealed five themes: formal evaluations, informal feedback, youth’s lives change, feelings, and the unknown. Lastly, the fourth research question, “What recommendations would session directors make for the implementation of exemplary teaching practices in the Especially for Youth program?” highlighted four recommendations: be fully engaged, prepare content, remain humble, and support the staff.

Given the similar scope of FSY sessions, where directors in these venues also teach between three hundred and fifteen hundred youth and deliver multiple lessons throughout the program,[11] these findings are critical in understanding the dynamics of this large-scale educational program. The insights gained provide a foundation for enhancing training and orientation for future session directors, ultimately contributing to the broader field of religious and values-based education.

Research Methodology

With approval from the director of the EFY program, fifteen EFY session directors were chosen as a sample size from the total of 130 session directors, both past and present, at the time of the study. This sample size encouraged saturation of information and ensured that the study would be completed in the time and with the resources allotted.[12] Criteria for inclusion and exclusion were employed to help determine the participants in the study. Of additional help in this regard were maximum variation and snowball sampling methods.[13] The maximum variation sampling technique was applied to include session directors with a wide range of variation across the sample.[14] To accomplish this, the following criteria were considered: (a) male and female session directors, (b) session directors employed by CES and session directors who were not employed by CES (non-CES), (c) former and current session directors, and (d) a geographically diverse sample based on the state in which session directors reside.

Methods of inquiry included reflection on data elicited through semistructured interviews, both in person and through videoconferencing with eight preplanned questions.[15] Additional questions, not previously planned, were asked to explore unexpected or relevant material revealed by the participant during the interview.[16] Overall, this study examined the challenges faced, measures of success used, and overall recommendations made for the implementation of exemplary teaching practices in the EFY program.

Data Collection

The data analysis within the study was a continual process of examining the data collected and organizing it into patterns, categories, and themes until a comprehensive set of themes was derived. The results of the study include the voice and perspective of the participants and a description and interpretation of the data.[17] The following eight-question interview instrument was used for data collection. Each interview question was designed to correlate with the research questions described as follows:

Table 1. Research questions and correlating interview questions

Data Analysis

During the data analysis process, inter-rater reliability[18] was established, as well as increased external validity of the results through a three-part process. The process included the following steps: (a) coding, (b) peer review process, and (c) expert review process. For the coding process, all the interviews were transcribed, and then the computer software HyperRESEARCH was used to look closely at this raw data and code key words and phrases that reflected themes found in the research. These codes were then combined into broader themes[19] which helped form various conceptual categories, or constructs, representing the core ideas explored in the research. The results presented in the following sections were thoroughly reviewed with further analysis applied to specific themes that arose from each respective research question. The number of themes that emerged from the semistructured interviews totaled twenty-four with five subthemes.

Results for Research Question One

The first five interview questions served to answer the first research question on teaching strategies and practices. Those interview questions collectively yielded a total of thirteen themes and five subthemes.

Plan and prepare. All fifteen interviewees discussed the need to prepare material for their lessons. The data showed what resources session directors use to develop the content for their lessons. They sought to support the goals and objectives of the EFY program and to utilize the materials provided to them prior to the summer. The process of brainstorming and recording ideas—coupled with their personal spiritual preparation, such as prayer, scripture study, and personal worthiness—were also common among session directors.

Session directors highlighted the need to “stay fresh,”[20] create new material, and not rely unduly on information used in previous years. They also saw a need to seek materials that offered a different point of view or “intellectually stimulating” content.[21]

Another strategy in planning and preparing to teach youth was to base the material on the needs of the participants. Four interviewees articulated reasons why they made changes to their lesson plan during the session. They felt it was important to relate their teaching to the needs of the students, which became apparent once the session directors met them in person. Others drew from current news and media, which also supports the idea of meeting the needs of the students by relating lesson content to the world they live in.

Session directors also drew on Church materials, including quotes from Church leaders. One interviewee described such quotes as “modern-day scripture.”[22] S&I materials were commonly used as well. As one interviewee reported:

EFY has done a great job at saying, “Hey, we want you to utilize all the training you’ve used at seminary and institutes to strengthen our youth.” That is where most of us are getting our strategies and our techniques and our methodologies. . . . We have been trained in very specific means . . . [that] include what we call the Fundamentals of Gospel Teaching and Learning.[23]

Another noted practice used in lesson planning and preparation was the five-step pattern used to teach the scriptures to youth, from chapter 2 of Gospel Teaching and Learning: A Handbook for Teachers and Leaders in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion. The five steps consist in helping students (1) to learn the content and context of a given scriptural passage, (2) to identify associated doctrines and principles, (3) to understand those principles, (4) to feel why whose principles are important, and (5) to apply those principles.[24]

Students share. Session directors encouraged their students in different ways to share their thoughts, ideas, and experiences during lessons. For example, youth are invited to share their perspectives by talking to the person next to them (pair and share), to ask questions, and to write down their thoughts. These forms of promoting two-way participation are effective in involving students in the practice of reflection and constructing new knowledge based on their own experiences.

Use scripture. Session directors stated their desire to help their students develop their ability to find guidance and inspiration in the scriptures. Common comments in this regard included “go deep,”[25] “really dig into the scriptures, and “be really scripture based.”[26]

Narrative. The use of narrative to share stories or personal experiences was another noted teaching practice. Comments from session directors along this line included “I’ve had experiences that may be unique,”[27] “[I] try and use a personal or relevant experience,”[28] and “I’ve tried to engage [participants] with stories, with personal experiences.”[29] More specifically, one session director stated, “If I am speaking to youth, instead of sharing what I am experiencing now in my life, I would be more reflective from when I was a teenager.”[30] Another added a word of caution in telling stories: “We can get off and start embellishing stuff. . . . I try to be very honest in my stories.”[31]

Music. Seven of the fifteen session directors mentioned using music in their lessons, including EFY music. Regarding the latter, one said, “I like to use the music. I think the music is an integral part of the program.”[32] Another added that music “causes a change of pace and maybe invites the Spirit in, in different ways than just standard lecture format.”[33] One session director explained that when participants go home, hopefully the music “will evoke more than nice music, [but] will take them back to . . . whatever it is that they learn[ed].”[34]

Humor. One session director stated, “I’m a big fan of humor. I think the General Authorities use humor in the most sacred meetings. I think that means we should too.”[35] Another stated, “I use humor . . . to catch [students] by surprise. That sort of jolts the mind a little bit and says, ‘Are you paying attention?’”[36] Still another added, “Humor is very engaging, and it may not be on the list of some seminary teachers’ tool list.”[37]

Variety. Session directors expressed a desire to avoid a lecture format and to utilize different approaches. Here’s a sampling of their observations: “[I] try to come up with more creative ways so [students] aren’t sitting there for 40 minutes listening to one speaker.”[38] “Another teaching strategy is just variety. Talking for 50 minutes . . . [is] death on a stick.”[39] “[Variety is a] shift in speed or humor or maybe an object lesson, something that will help those that have become disengaged to reengage.”[40] To assist in planning for variety, one session directed developed and used a lesson plan checklist (see appendix).

Invite to act. An additional teaching practice used is inviting learners to act or do something in their lives, inside or outside of class, related to the content shared in the class. One session director stated, “If you teach doctrine, invite [students] to engage in it. Sometimes literally say, ‘I’d like to invite you to try this in your life.’”[41] Another comment reminded that teaching has to “translate into new ways of understanding the gospel . . . [and adoption of] new behaviors.”[42]

Testimony. Another practice categorized as a teacher-led practice is the use of testimony. If teachers do not feel they are connecting with the students or “see in the eyes [of] the individuals that it matters,”[43] then switching to expression involving testimony can add an enriching dimension to the lesson. One respondent noted, “I have learned that as soon as you find yourself rambling, or you find yourself not connecting, stop. Bear your testimony. Talk about the Savior.”[44]

Pivot and change plans. Another practice used by many session directors is to change a lesson plan in the moment they are teaching. For example, “I will say something that I had not prepared to say, or a scripture comes to mind that I will reference and I will read on the spot.”[45] Another director shared a story that “wasn’t a part of [the] plan,”[46] a practice described by his colleagues as “following the group”[47] and “pivoting and adaptation that doesn’t cause you to sequentially get through your speech.”[48] To support this practice of flexibility in teaching, one director created a PowerPoint slide with “links to wherever it is I want to go for that topic.”[49] Other suggestions were to have “one element that you are trying to emphasize—never go beyond three”[50] and to focus on three main points or three scriptures to highlight in the allotted time.[51]

Practices to avoid. Many session directors suggested practices they seek to avoid given the large number of students in their classes. For example, the pair and share strategy is “not a great strategy when you have 900 kids.”[52] Three respondents noted that having students share experiences with the entire group should be done with “caution” since doing so requires much time.[53] Another offered this suggestion for the successful sharing of experiences:

I’ve found when you ask questions that are just cold, people give answers and it’s not even the answer they want to give. They are just nervous, and they’re scared, and they’re scared what’s on the top of their mind, but if they have a chance a think or practice, . . . then you get some meaningful answers and . . . can build off of them.[54]

Another practice to avoid was described as the manipulation of students through emotionalism. For example, one session director defined emotional manipulation as “trying to get the youth to cry as a manifestation of the Spirit.”[55] Another added, “We tend to shy away from potentially manipulative or imitation of spiritual prompting.”[56]

Another practice to avoid is mimicking, or copying the exact strategies and practices of other teachers. Although many session directors noted that they do borrow strategies and techniques, many make a concerted effort to not do exactly what another teacher did or tried. In reference to observing other teachers, one director stated, “I’ll never do the same thing that they do. . . . Fin[d] your own style.”[57] Other comments along this line included these: “I’m just content to say, ‘[Other teachers] have their strengths and I have my strengths.’”[58] “I might be the anti-technique borrower.”[59] “You have to adopt but also adapt, meaning that it’s good to adopt practices, but adapt them to [your] style.”[60]

Pacing. Four session directors mentioned the importance of pacing a lesson and how the time they would spend on certain aspects would change when teaching youth. “We may spend a little more time on [context],” one reported.[61] Another added, “We spend a lot more time on application . . . [and] explanation of application,”[62] meaning how the content connects or relates to the life experience of the learners. One session director said that because the youth are part of an “immediate gratification society,” teachers need to increase the pace of the lesson and “guide [students] expeditiously through [the scriptures].”[63] Three other respondents noted that when teaching youth, there needs to be an increase in “energy level”[64]—that is, “more enthusiasm”[65] or a “certain level of enthusiasm.”[66]

Technology. Session directors indicated varying and mixed viewpoints on using technology in teaching. Eleven noted that it can be overused, can distract students, and can compromise social skills, including the ability to converse face-to-face with others. Ten expressed positive views of technology in the classroom, with some respondents providing both positive and negative comments concerning its use in teaching. Despite the variety of opinion, in answer to research question one, many session directors incorporate technology into their teaching and consider it a helpful practice.

Session directors use various forms of technology in their teaching. When incorporating quotes from Church leaders, some session directors will “get a video clip of [the] speech so it’s [their] voice, [their] words, and not just rephrasing them.[67] Media such as the Bible videos and youth videos produced by the Church are utilized by session directors. Still pictures and images are likewise used. “Pictures are always worth a thousand words and sometimes can teach much more prolifically and powerfully than anything else.”[68]

Using PowerPoint as presentation software is a widely used practice. Benefits include that it’s a way to “ask [a] question you don’t have to repeat,”[69] “to not only hear the quote but see the quote,”[70] and “to remind [the participants] there is a purpose.”[71] In other words, this technology aids the organization and structure of the lesson. In contrast, however, other session directors warned against overusing PowerPoint or allowing it “to control the conversation,”[72] having seen teachers use it too much to the detriment of student engagement. One session director created a system that allows him to “not [be] tied linearly to taking [students] through a presentation,” as PowerPoint is designed to do.[73]

Another strategy that leverages technology in the classroom includes the use of mobile devices for two purposes: to encourage live audience participation and to access digital scriptures. The use of mobile devices for live audience participation, using tools such as Poll Everywhere,[74] allows for students to reflect on their instructor’s questions and to type their answers.

As noted earlier, session directors advised that technology be used with caution and prudence. One suggested that technology should be used to “facilitate [students’] access and curiosity [rather] than gatekeeping their knowledge.”[75] Another session director told how he’d learned to never rely on technology, “because that moment when you got to have it, it won’t work.”[76] And “when [the technology] doesn’t work,” said another, it “kills the flow” of the lesson[77]

Results for research question two

The second research question—what teaching challenges are faced by the session directors of the Especially for Youth program—yielded two distinct themes. Key findings follow.

Connectivity. One challenge faced by session directors is maintaining their connection with the learners, both inside and outside the classroom. Seven session directors mentioned the difficulty in meeting participants individually. For example, “It’s hard to connect with that many people. It’s hard to have a personal connection with five hundred kids.”[78] The desire for meaningful connectivity with the youth is hindered by the size and layout of the classroom environment. Session directors want to move around the classroom and be close to students. While this practice “can be done at times at EFY,” it is often not possible.[79]

Fatigue. Another challenge for session directors is fatigue—namely, lack of sleep for both the session directors and EFY participants. One director observed, “[The students] are sleep deprived and tired.”[80] Another added, “They are up late at night.”[81] One session director confided, “I’m so tired by Wednesday, I can’t even think straight.”[82]

Results for research question three

How do session directors of the Especially for Youth program measure their teaching success? The results for that research question three yielded five themes.

Formal evaluations. Session directors measure their success based on formal feedback measured in one of two ways. First, effective session directors are invited to return in the same capacity for a subsequent year. Second, following the session, EFY youth evaluate the session directors and provide feedback to them via email. One session director noted, “There are a lot of evaluations out there that go out from our students. EFY is great at measuring and taking evaluations from our students.”[83]

Informal feedback. Session directors also measure their success through informal means, such as by comments from those who attend the EFY classes, including program staff and sometimes family members. For example, “It is kids that come up to me and say, ‘I really needed to hear that.’”[84] One session director commented that it was helpful “to get feedback from the counselors.”[85] Another stated that “at EFY, success rate could be measured by how many kids stand and come after to talk to you . . . [and] how many kids want pictures with you. . . . Those are tangible measures of kids connecting.”[86] Other directors say that success should not be based on comments from the youth. For example, “[Success is] not measured by the . . . handshaking, the picture taking, none of that, zero, zilch, nada.”[87]

Youth’s lives change. One valued form of informal feedback for session directors is the comments participants make suggesting changes they want to make in their lives because of their experiences at EFY or in a specific class. “When someone says, ‘I want to be different because of coming to EFY,’ that’s when I know it was a success.”[88] In a similar way, another session director feels successful when a participant says, “I’m going to make a change in my life because of something that you said.”[89]

Feelings. Session directors indicated that another way they measure their success is by positive feelings, either during or following a lesson. “I just feel good.”[90] “If I feel edified, then I hope that [the participants] felt edified. If I feel enthused and positive, then my hope is that [the participants] do as well.”[91] “I feel that feeling, that peace and that power that comes when you are on the right point and the kids are engaged.”[92] The only “true measure of success is really the confirmation that the Spirit is there,”[93] echoing a similar observation: “The one way that I [measure my success] is if I feel the Spirit.”[94]

The unknown. Often session directors did not know whether they had been successful. One stated, “The great reality of this is that you never will know. A teacher will never know the full impact of their teaching.”[95] Another wondered, “I don’t know that I’m ever successful at reaching five hundred kids.”[96] One session director even lamented, “I usually think that every time I directed a session I always felt like I failed. It was horrible. I hated it. It was usually my [spouse] that walked me out of that one . . . ‘No, you’re okay.’”[97]

Results for research question four

Research question four asked, What recommendations would session directors make for the implementation of exemplary teaching practices in the Especially for Youth program? The results fell into four themes.

Be fully engaged. The first way to be fully engaged as a session director is to offer one’s unique talents, gifts, and abilities as a person and as a teacher. Eleven of the fifteen respondents highlighted the importance of not trying to be or act like any other session director, but rather to simply be oneself. “If you teach through someone else’s eyes or someone else’s lens, you’ll lose the gift that you can offer. . . . Bring your gifts. . . . Don’t bring what others have. Bring what you have.”[98] Another added, “My best advice I was ever given . . . [was] be yourself.”[99] Another way to be fully engaged as a session director is to take advantage of opportunities to get to know participants outside the classroom. As discussed earlier, this can be difficult given the large numbers of youth, but many session directors felt such efforts are worthwhile. Said one, “I’ll take advantage of down time and just visit with kids.”[100] Another added, “If a session director is not careful, they have been teaching the masses and they haven’t gotten to know kids.”[101] One session director called these spontaneous visits “informal teaching moments”[102] and gave an example of how to approach and connect with the youth:

We will be walking, and we’ll see kids hanging out together. We’ll stop and we’ll talk to them. . . . We’ll ask them their names and where they are from. Then they’ll ask us a question. “Hey, I have a question for you.” Then there is an informal teaching moment right there. . . . For me, classroom is not a border of walls; classroom is any opportunity to teach.[103]

As a way to connect and meet participants, one session director suggested giving something to participants that would attach to their lanyards. This brief interaction gives the session director a chance to have a one-on-one experience so “that way when I would see a participant from a distance, I could say, I already talked to that one.”[104]

Finding ways to be fully engaged with EFY youth requires extra effort that session directors recognize as part of their role to help make the EFY experience especially rewarding for all involved. Comments along this line amounted to “just do it.” For example: “Be engaged the entire week and not just the moments when you are on the stage.”[105] “I just have to go prepared and be willing to be with the youth every second . . . [and] be willing and ready to dive in and commit 100%, 150% the whole week.”[106] “The session director has got to be really visible, . . . greeting kids in the cafeteria, and being at the games, cheering for all the kids.”[107]

Prepare content. Recommendations for other session directors and speakers at EFY include preparing lesson content that is up-to-date and relevant to the youth. They should not rely on old material they have used in previous years. One director suggested, “When it feels like your lesson was pulled out of 1983, I don’t think that is as relevant for the youth.”[108] Further comments were “As you are session director, you cannot rely on the way you taught in ’85”[109] and “Make sure that the seven talks that you are giving, that they are updated and you are tweaking.”[110] In a similar vein, session directors should make their lessons meaningful to the youth and their experience. “Another key element would be making it relevant. Relevant to the audience.”[111] “The youth will tune you out if they don’t think you get them or if they don’t think that you understand them. . . . Try to make it as relevant as possible.”[112]

Be humble. Another suggestion offered to session directors and speakers in the EFY program is to be humble, denoting that session directors should have a modest view of their role and their abilities to teach. “You can all of a sudden start thinking, ‘Hey, I’m a pretty good teacher,’” observed one session director. “That can be dangerous in terms of the minute you start to believe that you have made it as a teacher, it hinders your progress.”[113] Others added the following: “The moment you forget humility, you are done. Guarding that humility should be a number-one priority.”[114] “Session directors sometimes think they are more important than they really are—that twisted philosophy can change the way they interact and . . . can hurt the program.”[115]

Support the staff. The final recommendation offered is to support EFY staff. This means that session directors are spending time getting to know and mentoring other staff members, including speakers, field coordinators, building coordinators, counselors, and speakers. For example, “[Session directors] forget that they need to be the counselor’s counselor.”[116] This role of mentorship to other young adults and adults echoes the previous suggestion of finding opportunities to teach during informal teaching moments.

Summary

In conclusion, this inquiry into the teaching strategies and practices of session directors in the EFY program, now known as FSY, offers insights into a relatively uncharted area of religious education. This qualitative phenomenological study, centered on the distinct dynamics of a five-day multistake youth conference setting, aimed to uncover the unique teaching methods that shape the spiritual experiences of participants.

Based on the insights from fifteen past and present session directors, our findings identified twenty-four themes and five subthemes, giving a clear understanding of the instructional methods used in the program. The study focused on four main research questions that addressed effective teaching strategies, challenges faced, measures of success, and recommendations from session directors:

• Teaching Strategies and Practices: The first research question revealed thirteen themes: plan and prepare, students share, use scriptures, narrative, music, humor, variety, invite to act, testimony, pivot and change plans, practices to avoid, pacing, and technology. Notable subthemes included emotionalism and mimicking within the “practices to avoid” category and media, presentation software, and mobile devices within the “technology” category.
• Teaching Challenges: The second research question highlighted two significant challenges: connectivity between instructor and youth and fatigue on the part of both.
• Measuring Teaching Success: For the third research question, five themes emerged: formal evaluations, informal feedback, youth’s lives change, feelings, and the unknown.
• Recommendations for Exemplary Teaching Practices: The fourth research question yielded four recommendations: be fully engaged, prepare content, be humble, and support the staff.

To reiterate, the scale of FSY sessions is seen in the fact that session directors instruct between three hundred and fifteen hundred participants and deliver multiple lessons per session based on topics indicated in the staff handbook.[117] That dynamic amplifies the complexity and significance of these strategies and highlights both the challenges and opportunities in providing meaningful spiritual education to large audiences.

Ultimately, this research lays a foundation for developing consistent training and orientation programs for FSY speakers and staff, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the FSY program. It serves as a valuable resource for religious educators aiming to make a positive impact on the lives of youth, enriching the broader field of moral, spiritual, and values-based education.

Appendix

Lesson

Day, time
Music:
Need, Bring:
Prep and Setup::

Notes

[1] Aubrey Eyre, “Church News: FSY Conferences Modeled after BYU’s Especially for Youth, Announced for Stakes in U.S., Canada,” Deseret News, July 19, 2019, www.deseret.com.

[2] “Youth Activities: Stake and Multistake Activities,” www.churchofjesuschrist.org.

[3] “Frequently Asked Questions About FSY in the United States and Canada,” notice sent to local leaders September 12, 2019, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, www.churchofjesuschrist.org.

[4] John Bytheway, “A History of ‘Especially for Youth,’ 1976–1986” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2003).

[5] Bytheway, “History of ‘Especially for Youth.’”

[6] Tod Myers to author, email, December 3, 2015.

[7] J. D. Hucks to author, email, December 9, 2020.

[8] John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. (Sage, 2014), 30.

[9] Mildred L. Patten, Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials, 7th ed. (Pyrczak, 2009), 9.

[10] Creswell, Research Design, 15.

[11] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/fsy/bc/fsy/2019/PD60002660-2019-fsy-staff-handbook-eng.pdf?lang=eng.

[12] Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Sage, 2002), 169.

[13] Snowball sampling is a method where participants refer others to the researcher, helping expand the study’s participant pool.

[14] Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 172.

[15] Janice M. Morse and Lyn Richards, README FIRST for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods (Sage Publications, 2002), 94.

[16] Patten, Understanding Research Methods, 153.

[17] John W. Creswell and Cheryl N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 5th ed. (Sage, 2023), 160.

[18] Inter-rater reliability measures how consistently different people evaluate or rate the same subject or data.

[19] Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, 167.

[20] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[21] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[22] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[23] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[24] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[25] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[26] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[27] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[28] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[29] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[30] Anonymous informant #11, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[31] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[32] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[33] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[34] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[35] Anonymous informant #2, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[36] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[37] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[38] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[39] Anonymous informant #11, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[40] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[41] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[42] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[43] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[44] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[45] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[46] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[47] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[48] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[49] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[50] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[51] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016; anonymous informant #2, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[52] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[53] Anonymous informant #4, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[54] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[55] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[56] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[57] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[58] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[59] Anonymous informant #2, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[60] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[61] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[62] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[63] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[64] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[65] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[66] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[67] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[68] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[69] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[70] Anonymous informant #10, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[71] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[72] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[73] Anonymous informant #4, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[74] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[75] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[76] Anonymous informant #11, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[77] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[78] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[79] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016; anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016; anonymous informant #11, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[80] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[81] Anonymous informant #11, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[82] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[83] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[84] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[85] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[86] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[87] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[88] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[89] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[90] Anonymous informant #4, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[91] Anonymous informant #8, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[92] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[93] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[94] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[95] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[96] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[97] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[98] Anonymous informant #6, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[99] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[100] Anonymous informant #5, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[101] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[102] Anonymous informant #12, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[103] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[104] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[105] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[106] Anonymous informant #9, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[107] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[108] Anonymous informant #3, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[109] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[110] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[111] Anonymous informant #7, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[112] Anonymous informant #14, in conversation with the author, April 2016.

[113] Anonymous informant #1, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[114] Anonymous informant #2, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[115] Anonymous informant #15, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[116] Anonymous informant #13, in conversation with the author, March 2016.

[117] FSY Staff Handbook (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2019), 129–30, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/fsy/bc/fsy/2019/PD60002660-2019-fsy-staff-handbook-eng.pdf.