Increasing students' perceived sociopolitical empowerment through online and face-to-face community psychology seminars

A R T I C L E

INCREASING STUDENTS’PERCEIVED SOCIOPOLITICALEMPOWERMENT THROUGHONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACECOMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGYSEMINARS

Donata Francescato, Andrea Solimeno, Minou EllaMebane, and Manuela TomaiUniversity of Roma La Sapienza

Community psychology theorists underline the importance of promotingsociopolitical empowerment, but few studies have been conducted on theevaluation of the efficacy of empowering programs among universitystudents. The authors report two studies: the first, with 216 psychologymajors, compared the efficacy of face-to-face and online communitypsychology seminars in promoting perceived sociopolitical empowermentand self efficacy. The second, with 170 psychology majors, explored ifdifferences in teachers experiences affected students sociopoliticalempowerment. Results of ANOVA, on measures of empowerment andself-efficacy, indicate that learning community psychology principles anda community analysis skill did increase sociopolitical empowerment andefficacies in all studies, both in online and face-to-face settings,regardless of teachers’ experience. Implications for promoting activecitizenship and attracting more students to community psychologyprograms are discussed. �C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Several American scholars have long maintained that community psychologists shoulddetermine how to foster the development of political empowerment (Kelly, 1986;Perkins, Brown, & Taylor, 1996; Stokols, 1986). We need to promote political

Correspondence to: Donata Francescato, University of Roma La Sapienza, Facolta di Psicologia 1, Via deiMarsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 37, No. 7, 874–894 (2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

& 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20338

empowerment particularly among students in our university settings to favor thegrowth of social capital and active citizenship and to encourage them to choosecommunity psychology as a field of graduate study. In fact, the decline in politicalinterest and participation in young people in most Western countries (FourceFernandez, 2002; Mebane, Sorace, & Vecchione, 2006) is particularly worrisome forcommunity psychology, which attempts to unite clinical psychology’s traditionalconcern for the welfare of the individual with an interest in the legislative and politicalprocesses that contribute to create the conditions in which individuals live. Probablystudents who are not interested in the political aspects of our world rarely will bedrawn to community psychology.

How does one favor the development of political empowerment? In a famousstudy, Kieffer (1982) identified four distinct phases of development in grassrootsactivists: entry, advancement, incorporation, and commitment. Activists went frombeing politically alienated, and then they advanced with mentoring and increasedcritical awareness to incorporate their political beliefs and work into their personal live.During the period of commitment, personal relationships changed, and political actionincreased.

Since then, political empowerment has been found to be linked to involvement inone’s community (Heller, Price, Reinhartz, Riger, & Wasserman, 1984; Perkins et al.,1996; Zimmerman, 1990), political actions (Stewart, Settles, & Winter, 1998;Zimmerman, 1989), and feelings of efficacy (Cole, Zucker, & Ostrove, 1998; Florin& Wandersman, 1984; Hinkle, Fox-Cardamone, Haseleu, Brown, & Irwin, 1996;Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). In studies with college students and communityresidents, Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) found that individuals with the highestcommunity involvement had the highest empowerment scores.

Political empowerment has been found to be linked to a commitment to act forsocial change (Donnely & Majka, 1998; Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997; Foster-Fishman,Salem, Chibnall, Legler, & Yapchai, 1998; Fyson, 1999; Zimmerman, Israel, Schultz, &Checkoway, 1992). In addition, efficacy offers an antidote to alienation and can beunderstood as a form of political powerfulness (Zimmerman, 1989). As such, efficacymay be a predictor of activism (Wittig, 1996). Characteristics of political empower-ment, as described by primarily U.S. authors include a commitment to a social cause,community involvement, and political efficacy. Some research has indicated that thesecharacteristics may be fostered by creating empowering settings (Maton, 1993; Maton& Salem, 1995).

Most European and Latin American community psychologists consider the processof becoming aware of the link between individual and social well-being as a core step inthe development of political empowerment. They underline that collective struggleshave been crucial in the past to obtain civic, human, and social rights that increased thefreedom and empowerment of individuals (Amerio, 2004; Francescato, Tomai, &Mebane, 2006; Lavanco, 2001; Mannarini, 2004; Menezes, Coimbra, & Campos, 2007;Montero & Varas Diaz, 2007; Orford, Duckett, & McKenna, 2003; Sanchez Vidal,Zambrano Constanzo, & Palacın, 2004).

The process of political empowerment begins when one becomes aware of thesocial opportunities and the obstacles present in the settings where one lives; andabove all, understands the unequal power dynamics among individuals, groups,organizations, local communities, and macrosocial environments.

To become empowered, a person needs to be able to hope and to envision a betterfuture. One also has to have objectives and take a variety of actions to reach them.

Increasing Students’ Perceived Sociopolitical Empowerment � 875

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

To become sociopolitically empowered requires a further process: to become aware ofhow sociopolitical events, even in far away places, can influence negatively or positivelyone’s life. Therefore, an individual should be interested and willing to keep informedabout local, national, and international political news. To become politically aware, oneneeds to develop the capacity to read power and social dynamics in wider contexts andto feel an affective bond with not only family and friends, but with strangers, who havecommon aims and responsibilities as cocitizens. Finally, a person needs to develop thebelief that she may increase her power to influence social settings by joining others incollective struggles.

SOCIOPOLITICAL EMPOWERMENT AMONG STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITYSETTINGS

Research involving university students has shown that one can improve various formsof self-efficacy as theorized by Bandura (1997); favoring what he calls enactive mastery,through various forms of training. For instance, Goker (2006) showed that peercoaching could increase self-efficacy of student instructors teaching English as aforeign language. Other studies proved that self-efficacy in preservice teachers can beenhanced when they are able to avail themselves of feedback from experiences,colleagues, and supervisors (Clifford & Green, 1996; Watters & Ginns, 1995). Otherexperiments have shown that business majors increased their self-efficacy after takingpart in an academic self-management training course (Gerhardt & Brown, 2006).Unrau and Beck (2004) found that social work students, who enrolled in both researchand practice courses improved their research self-efficacy scores more than studentswho took only practice courses. Not all training programs do succeed in increasingstudents’ self-efficacy. A recent study by Fletcher (2005) who tried to buildundergraduates’ technological literacy for higher education failed to find significantdifferences in self-efficacy scores between control and treatment students.

Although most studies show that one can improve one important component ofempowerment, promoting various forms of self-efficacy in university students, weknow very little on how to increase sociopolitical empowerment, because relatively fewstudies have evaluated the efficacy of deliberate attempts to promote perceived oractual sociopolitical empowerment among students. Angelique, Reischl, and DavidsonII (2002) have examined the effects of an intervention, focusing on the development ofpolitical empowerment with university students. Undergraduates were randomlyassigned to one of two conditions (intervention or control) and were surveyed at twotime points: before and after implementation of the intervention. The interventionincluded many different components, comprising small group activities, mentors andleaders, skill development, access to resources, and immersion in the community. Theresults show that individuals who participated in the empowering intervention hadincreased feelings of political commitment and a decreased sense of political efficacycompared to individuals who were randomly assigned to a waiting list/control group.Because the authors used different components in their intervention, is difficult tounderstand just what activities were important in raising political commitment butdecreasing political efficacy.

We feel it crucial to find ways to raise sociopolitical empowerment among commonpsychology students, whom at least in Italy have been found in several studies to be

876 � Journal of Community Psychology, September 2009


either uninterested or disgusted with politics (Buzzi, Cavalli, & De Lillo, 2002; Rossi,2003; Sensales, Chirumbolo, & Areni, 2002).

We hypothesized that because community psychology’s concepts and interventionstrategies stress the link between individual and collective well being, participatingin seminars where community psychology intervention skills are learned couldincrease sociopolitical empowerment. Not all students, however, in Italy are ableto attend face-to-face seminars. According to Italian academic rules, students canalso hold jobs and are not required to attend face-to-face classes. As an alternative,working students can participate in online seminars. We thought that it would beinteresting to assess whether online seminars could promote sociopolitical empower-ment as well or better than a traditional face-to-face community seminar. Moreover,learning community skills in asynchronous small group discussions online, throughthe new Internet platforms that make available all course materials and record allexchanges among participants, could offer students in the work force the opportunityto learn professional skills as well as other additional advantages. For instance,Rudestam (2004) argues that in asynchronous online learning settings, ‘‘Facultiesand students have the advantage of creating a permanent written record of theentire classroom experience as an ongoing source of reflection, evaluation andlearning’’ (p. 428).

Some authors maintain that not only online technology permits better access toreliable data about what happens in a classroom than traditional note taking, but alsothat the method of instruction is changed by the presence of continuously availableshared records. Harasim and Yung (1993) asked 176 teachers with online and face-to-face teaching experiences to evaluate the two settings. Ninety percent of therespondents reported that online the teacher becomes more a facilitator and amentor, that students grow more independent, develop more group interactions, havemore time to reflect, and exchange ideas. Young (2004), in a 2-year longitudinal study,found strong support for Pickering’s (1995) prediction that online teaching wouldfavor the emergence of informal, subject-oriented groups of learner/teachers.

Different authors (Berge & Collins, 1996; Bocconi & Pozzi, 1999; Draves, 2000;Gokhale, 1995; McGee & Boyd, 1995; Nelson & McFadzean, 1998; Shepherd,2000a,b; Zorfass et al., 1998) report that online teachers with respect to traditionalface-to-face teachers need to have specific training competencies in both communica-tions’ technology and group facilitating skills. McPherson and Nunes (2004) outlinefour main types of roles (pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical) that onlineteachers have to play to maximize the benefits of learning environments for students.However, they underline that often online teachers had not been properly equippedwith the basic skills to support students.

Gray, Ryan, and Coulon (2004) have attempted to explore how online teachers aretrained to become skilled online tutors. They selected 25 case studies in sevencountries, only three involved collaborative learning. They found that in most cases,tutors were trained through experiential learning, whereas virtual tutors were trainedin exactly the same environment as their learners. Gray et al. (2004) provide no dataon the effectiveness of this kind of training. In fact, very few empirical evaluationstudies have been done comparing tutors with different training or experience levels.Some research has shown that tutor-led online learning groups fare better thanuntutored learning settings (Lombardi, Forte, Di Nocera, Sementina, & Renzi, 2004),but emphasize the importance of taking into consideration students’ characteristicssuch as motivation.



Background of Present Studies

To investigate whether social political empowerment and self-efficacy would increasemore in face-to-face or online settings, first it was necessary to evaluate where communityintervention skills could be effectively learned in online settings. So we conducted severalpreliminary studies in the academic years 1999–2002, which helped us to define theevaluation research design, train online teachers, develop appropriate teaching modulesthat could be taught sequentially both in regular face-to-face and online seminars, anddevelop and test assessment measures. For instance, to compare whether empowermentand various forms of efficacies increased with the passing of time or by taking anyuniversity course, we gave pre- and posttests to two groups of students. One group took ayear-long community psychology course, and the other a statistics course. Sociopoliticalempowerment increased somewhat in the community psychology course, but remainedunchanged in the second group. The simple passing of time, or attendance at anyuniversity course did not seem to affect sociopolitical empowerment; however, teachersand students differed in these two courses, so we could not rule out that differences inteachers or students characteristics might play a role.

We then conducted a pilot study in the academic year 2002 (Francescato, Porcelli,et al., 2006). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of collaborative learningin face-to-face and online groups in promoting academic knowledge and developingprofessional skills. Fifty psychology majors learned the same professional skill: acommunity evaluation methodology called community profiling (Martini & Sequi,1988), which allows the users to find out what particular problems and strengthscharacterize a local community. All students participated in two seminars taught over a2-month period by the same teacher online and face-to-face. All students, both onlineand face-to-face carried out, in 10 small groups, similar evaluation activities in a localcommunity of their choice. The content of the seminar dealt primarily with themethodology and application of community profiling. Because we had to compareonline versus face-to-face, we planned teaching modules very precisely, so that in thesame first week students in both learning settings, were exposed to materials relatingto the first community profile, and practiced group brainstorming. In the secondweek, they all again covered the same topic and practiced how to contact key peoplerepresenting majority and minority groups. (For a more detailed description ofcollaborative learning methodologies used and areas of contents in communityanalysis, see Francescato, 2007, 2008; Francescato, Porcelli, et al., 2006; Francescato,Mebane, Porcelli, Attanasio, & Pulino, 2007).

The research design for this pilot study did not include a nonintervention group,as we had previously ascertained that the simple passing of time did not changeempowerment scores. In addition, because the seminars were going to last only 2months, we thought it highly unlikely that the simple passing of such a short period oftime would influence sociopolitical interest. The pilot study also provided theopportunity to test teaching materials and evaluation measures of acquired knowledgeand professional competence. The modules were designed with precise learningobjectives for each community profile with tasks that could be completed either in aweekly 3-hour face-to-face meeting or online during the same week. The timing andsequence of tasks and exercises were therefore held constant for both experimentalconditions.

Participants in both seminars achieved a similar growth in learning about the topicof community psychology, and in the level of professional competence measured



through the evaluation of the 10 final group community assessments actually carriedout by students. All the small groups did an adequate job of community profiling,showing that this professional competence could be learned both online and throughface-to-face teaching. Two online working groups made two of the best analyses andthe two worst analyses were done by face-to-face groups. The online groups didappear to be more efficient in working together: Four of the five online groupssubmitted their final analysis before all of the face-to-face groups.

Once having established that community psychology principles and communityprofiling skills could be taught both online and face to-face, we felt ethically entitled toproceed with larger scale studies, which involved a greater number of psychologystudents and would allow us to explore if attending these community psychologyseminars also promoted perceived sociopolitical empowerment and various forms ofperceived self-efficacy in students. The aim of the first study was to compare theefficacy of face-to-face versus online learning settings in promoting students’sociopolitical empowerment and self-efficacy. Two-hundred sixteen students tooktheir 2-month community psychology seminars in the academic year 2003–2004,divided into 10 groups.

We wanted to hold constant the teacher variable, therefore the same teachertaught all 10 groups, homogenous for gender, age, and grade average. Theydiffered only for teaching modality: online or face-to-face. In general, the resultsof this first study confirmed our hypothesis that through community psychologyseminars one could increase various forms of self-efficacy and above allpolitical interest, a very important component of personal empowerment accordingto our theoretical constructs. Results also indicated that this could be achieved both inonline and in face-to-face seminars, using in both settings collaborative learningmethods.

However, because in this first study we used only one teacher, and she was a veryenthusiastic community psychologist, perhaps our results could be partially influencedby her teaching. The instructor was blind as to the studies’ empowerment hypothesesand course content was neutral in terms of desired outcomes. However, we wonderedif less experienced teachers using the same collaborative methodologies, exposingstudents to the same community psychology concepts and having them practice theircommunity profiling skills in a real community would obtain different results in termsof students’ empowerment Would some teachers obtain better results in face-to-face oronline settings, according to how much teaching experience they had in both learningmodalities? Our second study, carried out with 170 students in the academic year2004–2005 tried to answer these questions.

Five teachers differing in job credentials and years of experience in teachingface-to-face and online taught each one online and one face-to-face seminar, identicalin content to the ones attended by students in the first study. The instructorswere not knowledgeable of the different aims of this second study, since it waspart a wide multiyear program of evaluation of efficacy of learning in online andface-to-face contexts in several Italian universities. All pretest and posttest measureswere the same in the two studies (an empowerment questionnaire, and severalmeasures of self-efficacy fully described in study I). Research assistants who were notinvolved in the teaching administered the tests. The contents of the seminars wereentirely related to community profile analysis. Having described the purposes,sequence, participants and measures used in both studies, we now proceed to describeeach study in detail.



FIRST STUDY

Objectives

The aim of the first study was to compare the efficacy of face-to-face and onlineseminars presenting a community psychology intervention methodology (communityprofiles analysis) in fostering sociopolitical empowerment and various forms of efficacyin psychology’s majors. We hypothesized based on the results on our pilot study thatonline students would increase their empowerment and their self-efficacy more thanface-to-face students.

Participants

Two-hundred sixteen psychology majors, attending the fifth year of their 5-yearmaster training program during the academic year 2003–2004, were divided into 10small groups, homogenous for gender, age, and grade average, and then 5 groups(91 women and 18 men) were randomly assigned to online seminars and 5 groups(92 women and 15 men) to face-to-face community psychology seminars. All 10 seminarswere taught by the same teacher expert both in online and face-to-face learning settings.Students mean age was 24.3, 85% were women and 15% men, reflecting the gendercomposition of psychology majors in Italy (85% women and 15% men).

Design and Procedures

One teacher, expert in both face-to-face and online teaching, included small groupcollaborative learning activities into a seminar series consisting of weekly modules thatcould be completed both in face-to-face and online settings. The same teacher acted ascontent expert and process facilitator for all groups. In all 10 seminar students learnedthe same professional skill, community profiling by actually participating in acommunity evaluation. Community profiling allows the users to find out whatparticular problems and strengths characterize a local community. Eight profiles(territorial, demographic, economic, service, institutional, anthropological, psycholo-gical, and future) are drawn through a variety of data gathering techniques. Profilesare examined by a core research group made up of residents and communitypsychologists. This core group, helped by key experts, identifies the strong points andthe problems areas, using ‘‘hard data’’ such as rates of unemployment, demographicchanges, measured levels of air pollution, and number and types of services.

To explore the affective components of community belonging (i.e., shared values,feelings about living in certain neighborhoods, fears and hopes for the future), theanalysis of the psychological, anthropological, and perception of future profiles isperformed. To take emotional snapshots of how residents feel, Italian communityresearchers use story telling and a group movie script technique.1 Different groups ofresidents, who during the examination of the first five profiles have been shown to beimportant for that specific community, are asked to develop a plot for a movie scriptabout their community. They have to pick a genre of movie (e.g., historical, sciencefiction, comedy, and detective) and come up with a title, a plot, main characters, anddramatization; if they wish, they may include particular relevant scenes. Most groups

1For a more detailed description of the movie script technique (see: Francescato & Tomai, 2001; Francescato,Tomai, & Mebane, 2004; Mannarini, 2004).



choose to dramatize their ‘‘movie’’ in front of the other groups; they are thenencouraged to say what emotions they felt watching the performance. It seems thatemotional sharing in a protected environment promotes bonding and bridging,building a climate of trust in which even conflicts can be openly expressed andaccepted.

During a final meeting, in which all the people who participated in the researchare urged to attend, main strengths and weak points of all eight profiles are discussedas well as priorities for change. Goals and activities to strive towards are alsoformulated.

The modules were designed with precise learning objectives for each communityprofile with tasks that could be completed either in a weekly 3-hour face-to-facemeeting or asynchronously online during the same week. The timing and sequence oftasks and exercises were therefore held constant for both experimental conditions.The seminar series lasted 2 months. All students during this period carried out, in asmall group, a profiles analysis in a local community of their choice.

Measures

The following measures were administered before and after the seminars to allparticipants.

1. An empowerment scale (Francescato et al., 2007), validated with a largesample of Italian adults, composed of three subscales: (a) Perceived capacity todefine and reach objectives (10 items), (b) lack of perceived resilience indifficult situations and hopelessness (9 items), and (c) sociopolitical interest(5 items). Items were measured on a 7-point ordinal scale where 1 representsminimum and 7 maximum. In our studies, Cronbach’s alpha for the subscaleswere for 0.84 the first, 0.77 for the second, and 0.81 for the third subscale.

2. To evaluate the beliefs that students have about their capacities to study, toregulate their motivation, to organize their studies, to find support for theirlearning and to find study modalities that favor learning, we adapted Pastorelliand Picconi’s (2001) Scale of Perceived Academic Self Efficacy (SASE) for theuniversity environment. The original 19-item scale, based on Bandura’sMSPSE (Bandura, 1989, 2005; Choi, Fuqua, & Griffin, 2001), has been usedsuccessfully in several Italian studies with school children, but only 10 of the 19items were suitable for administration to university students. Each item wasmeasured on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all capable) to 5 (very capable).Cronbach’s alpha for the reduced scale in our studies was nonethelesssatisfactory (0.77).

3. To evaluate the convictions that students have about their capacity to cope withproblems and solve them in creative and original ways, we used the 14-itemPerceived Self Efficacy for Problem Solving scale (PSEPS; Pastorelli, Vecchio, &Boda, 2001). This scale was found reliable in a large sample of Italian students.Items were measured from 1 (not at all capable) to 7 (completely capable).Cronbach’s alpha in our studies was 0.87.

4. To evaluate the beliefs that students have about their capacity to fit in, and totake a proactive role in social situations using a 15-item Scale of Perceived



Social Efficacy (SPSE; Caprara, Gerbino, & Delle Fratte, 2001) derived fromthe Smith and Betz (2000) scale and validated for a large sample of Italianadults. The items were measured on a 5-point ordinal scale where onerepresented not at all capable to 5 completely capable. In our studies,Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.

Data Analysis

An analysis of variance for a mixed design was performed having as independentfactor the type of groups (face-to-face or online), and repeated measures (pre-post) forvarious dependent variables (perceived capacity to define and reach objectives, lack ofperceived resilience in difficult situations and hopelessness, perceived sociopoliticalinterest, perceived academic self-efficacy, perceived self-efficacy for problem solving,and perceived social efficacy).

Results

Perceived empowerment and self-efficacy promotion. Pre- and postcourse scores (time) andface-to-face and online scores (treatment) were analyzed through a MANOVA, as seenin Table 1. There is a significant time effect (Wilks’s l(6.209) 5 .801, po.001) and aTreatment�Time interaction (Wilks’s l(6.209) 5 939, po.05).

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each scale are shown in Tables 2 and 3.For the empowerment subscale, perceived capacity to define and reach objectives,

results of ANOVA showed a main effect of time (F1.214 5 24.52, po.001, Z2 5 .103).Mean scores increased from pre- (4.66) to post- (4.84) both in face-to-face and onlinesetting (see Table 2).

For the second subscale, lack of resilience in difficult situations and hopelessness,we found an interaction effect (F1.214 5 6.40, po.05, Z2 5 .029). Using the Duncan test,we ascertained that at the posttest the mean score is higher for online students (2.29)with respect to face-to-face colleagues (2.12; see Table 2).

Results on the sociopolitical interest subscale showed a main effect of time(F1,214 5 28.69, po.001, Z2 5 .118). Mean scores increased from pre- (3.65) to posttest(3.93), both for face-to-face and online students (see Table 2).

ANOVA results showed a main effect of time (F1.214 5 8.82, po.01, Z2 5 .040) foracademic self-efficacy. Mean scores increased from pre- (3.71) to posttest (3.79), bothfor face-to-face and online students (see Table 3).

The same results emerged for social efficacy: a main effect of time (F1.214 5 14.20,po.001, Z2 5 .062) with mean scores increasing from pre- (3.38) to posttest (3.51), andfor self-efficacy for problem solving (F1.214 5 14.67, po.001, Z2 5 .064), with meanscores increasing from pre- (4.94) to posttest (5.08; see Table 3).

Table 1. MANOVA for Perceived Self-Efficacy and Empowerment

Source Wilks’s l df p

Treatment .981 6.209 4.05Time .801 6.209 o.001Treatment�Time .939 6.209 o.05



Tabl

e2

.A

NO

VA(M

ixed

Des

ign

)C

onsi

der

ing

Vari

ous

Form

sof

Em

pow

erm

ent

inFa

ce-t

o-Fa

ce(F

tF)

an

dO

nli

ne

(OL

)G

rou

ps

Tim

eT

ime�

Tre

atm

ent

Tim

eS

core

FtF

OL

dfF

pF

p

Per

ceiv

edca

pac

ity

tod

efin

ean

dre

ach

ob

ject

ives

Pre

-M

4.6

84

.64

SD

.62

.61

Po

st-

M4

.90

4.7

81

.21

42

4.5

2o

.00

11

.67

4.0

5S

D.5

7.6

3P

erce

ived

lack

of

resi

lien

cein

dif

ficu

ltsi

tuat

ion

san

dh

op

eles

snes

sP

re-

M2

.21

2.1

8S

D.5

6.6

9P

ost

-M

2.1

22

.29

1.2

14

.09

4.0

56

.40

o.0

5S

D.5

8.6

7P

erce

ived

soci

op

oliti

cal

inte

rest

Pre

-M

3.7

03

.60

SD

1.1

41

.19

Po

st-

M3

.87

3.9

81

.21

42

8.6

9o

.00

14

.21

4.0

5S

D1

.18

1.1

4



Our hypothesis that online students would increase their empowerment andefficacy scores more than face-to-face students was not confirmed for most scalesbecause empowerment and efficacy scores improved in both groups withoutsignificant differences. In the empowerment subscale, lack of resilience in difficultsituations and hopelessness, we found a significant difference but contrary to ourhypothesis: at the posttest, the mean score was higher for online students with respectto face-to-face colleagues, that is they were less resilient.

SECOND STUDY

Objectives

Klobas and Renzi (2000) have shown that benefits of online learning are obtained ifteachers have a favorable attitude toward new learning technologies, are competent intheir use, and do not employ only traditional teaching methods but promotecollaborative learning. However, most authors, who have described the specificfunctions online teachers have to carry out to stimulate active collaborative learningamong students, underline the scarcity of empirical evaluation studies (Gray et al.,2004; Ligorio, Talamo, & Simons, 2002; McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Salmon, 2000).There seems to be a lack of well-controlled studies comparing the efficacy of teacherswith different levels of competence and years of experience teaching online and face-to-face on promoting student’s self-efficacy and empowerment.

Therefore, the aim of this second study was to ascertain whether students attendingcommunity psychology seminars with teachers differing in job credentials and years ofexperience in teaching online and face-to-face, would show different levels of increase inthe forms of empowerment and self-efficacy, previously measured in the first study.

Participants

One-hundred seventy psychology majors, attending the fifth year of their 5-yearmaster training program, during the academic year 2004–2005, were divided into 10

Table 3. ANOVA (Mixed Design) Considering Various Forms of Efficacy in Face-to-Face (FtF) andOnline (OL) Groups

Time

Time Score FtF OL df F p

Perceived academic self-efficacy Pre- M 3.76 3.67SD .43 .48

Post- M 3.83 3.75 1.214 8.82 o.01SD .47 .50

Perceived social efficacy Pre- M 3.39 3.37SD .60 .57

Post- M 3.50 3.51 1.214 14.20 o.001SD .56 .60

Perceived self-efficacy for problem solving Pre- M 4.94 4.93SD .60 .66

Post- M 5.07 5.09 1.214 14.67 o.001SD .73 .75



small groups, homogenous for gender, age, and grade average; then 5 groups(72 women and 10 men) were randomly assigned to asynchronous online seminarsand 5 groups (78 women and 10 men) to face-to-face community psychology seminars.Students’ mean age was 25, 88% were women and 12% men, reflecting the gendercomposition of psychology majors in Italy (85% women and 15% men).

Design and Procedures

Five teachers taught one online and one face-to-face seminar. They all were psychologygraduates, who had also completed a 2-year Master in Community Psychology, inwhich they had used collaborative learning modalities in a face-to-face setting and alsohad all followed 2-month training on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.They differed in their educational and job credentials ranging from doctoral studentsto assistant professors, and they also varied in the number of years of experience inteaching collaborative learning face-to-face and online.

They had the following characteristics:

1. Assistant professor with PhD, high experience online, high experience face-to-face.

2. Assistant professor with PhD, low experience online, high experience face-to-face.

3. Doctoral student, high experience online, low experience face-to-face.

4. Assistant professor with PhD, medium experience both online and face-to-face.

5. Doctoral student, low experience both face-to-face and online.

In all 10 seminars students learned the same community analysis methodologythat allows for the identification of strong and weak points of a local community,through interviews with key members and focus groups with dominant and minoritymembers, which was used in the first study. Each seminar was divided into eightmodules, organized for collaborative learning as in the first study.

Data Analysis

An analysis of variance for a mixed design was performed having as independentfactors type of groups (face-to-face and online) and teacher’s experience, and repeatedmeasures (pre-post) for the same dependent variables used in the previous study.

Results

Empowerment and self-efficacy promotion. Pre- and postcourse scores (time), face-to-faceand online scores (treatment), and teacher qualification scores (teacher) were analyzedthrough Manova, the results are illustrated in Table 4. There was a significant timeeffect (Wilks’s l(6.155) 5 .669, po.001).

ANOVAs for each scale are shown in Tables 5 and 6.For the empowerment subscale, perceived capacity to define and reach objectives,

results of analysis of variance showed no significant effect (see Table 5).Results on the lack of resilience in difficult situations and hopelessness subscale

showed a main effect of time (F1.160 5 22.85, po.001, Z2 5 .125): hopelessness mean



scores decreasing significantly in both online and face-to-face students from pre- (2.58)to posttest (2.39) (see Table 5).

Results on the sociopolitical interest subscale showed an almost significant maineffect of time (F1,160 5 3.56; p 5 .06, Z2 5 .022). Mean scores increased from pre- (4.16)to posttest (4.26), both for face-to-face and online students (see Table 5).

Differences among teachers did not seem to have a direct impact on student’sempowerment once course collaborative modalities and contents are held constant.

ANOVA results showed a main effect of time (F1.160 5 7.66, po.01, Z2 5 .046) foracademic self-efficacy. Mean scores increased from pre- (3.69) to posttest (3.77), bothfor face-to-face and online students, independently from teachers features (e.g.,different teachers does not affect the results; see Table 6).

The same results emerged for social efficacy: a main effect of time (F1.160 5 40.61,po.001, Z2 5 .202) with mean scores increasing from pre- (3.41) to posttest (3.59), andfor self-efficacy for problem solving (F1.160 5 53.07, po.001, Z2 5 .249), with meanscores increasing from pre- (4.82) to posttest (5.10) (see Table 6).

Even in this case, differences among teachers did not have a direct impact onstudent’s efficacy once course collaborative modalities and contents were heldconstant.

DISCUSSION

Our results do show that we can increase perceived sociopolitical empowerment andvarious forms of perceived self-efficacy, combining three intervention strategies: (a) thepresentation of community psychology principles; (b) the use collaborative learningmethodologies, whether online or face-to-face; and (c) participation in a communityevaluation project. Given the low political interest prevalent in many young peopletoday in many countries (Buzzi et al., 2002; Fource Fernandez, 2002; Rahn & Transue,1998; Rossi, 2003; Sensales et al., 2002), we think this is an important first finding thathas implications both for developing active citizenship and attracting more students tocommunity psychology. Further research is nonetheless needed to determine therelative contribution of (a) collaborative learning regardless of content, (b) mereexposure to community psychology principles, and (c) participation in a communityevaluation project, such as profiles analysis.

We cannot in fact, at this stage separate the effects of collaborative learning(a pedagogical methodology) from those of learning community psychology principlesand those of practicing a community intervention strategy on various forms ofperceived empowerment and efficacies. However, we can begin to formulate some

Table 4. MANOVA for Perceived Self-Efficacy and Empowerment

Source Wilks’s l df p

Treatment .980 6.155 4.05Teacher .858 6.155 4.05Time .669 6.155 o.001Treatment�Teacher .897 6.155 4.05Treatment�Time .995 6.155 4.05Teacher�Time .862 6.155 4.05Treatment�Teacher�Time .788 6.155 4.05



Tabl

e5

.AN

OVA

(Mix

edD

esig

n)

Con

sid

erin

gth

eIm

pa

ctof

Dif

fere

nt

Tea

cher

son

Vari

ous

Form

sof

Em

pow

erm

ent

inFa

ce-t

o-Fa

ce(F

tF)

an

dO

nli

ne

(OL

)G

rou

ps

Teac

her]1

Teac

her]2

Teac

her]3

Teac

her]4

Teac

her]5

Tim

eaT

ime�

Teac

herb

Tim

e�

Tre

atm

ent�

Teac

herb

Tim

eS

core

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

dfF

pF

pF

p

Per

ceiv

edca

pac

ity

Pre

-M

4.7

54

.52

4.4

74

.61

4.6

44

.59

4.7

24

.87

4.7

44

.72

tod

efin

ean

dS

D.4

8.3

4.4

2.6

1.4

9.5

8.4

8.6

8.5

5.6

41

.16

0�

reac

ho

bje

ctiv

esP

ost

-M

4.7

34

.75

4.5

54

.58

4.5

84

.71

4.8

04

.85

4.8

24

.70

1.8

24

.05

.19

4.0

51

.52

4.0

5S

D.5

1.5

8.4

5.5

5.5

0.5

5.5

5.5

6.6

2.5

44

.16

0��

Per

ceiv

edla

cko

fP

re-

M2

.60

2.3

62

.65

2.6

62

.61

2.7

32

.69

2.5

52

.57

2.3

5re

silien

cein

SD

.72

.59

.41

.74

.59

.69

.63

.73

.53

.72

1.1

60�

dif

ficu

ltP

ost

-M

2.4

62

.25

2.4

72

.31

2.4

82

.37

2.4

22

.41

2.4

22

.33

22

.85

o.0

01

.78

4.0

5.9

64

.05

situ

atio

ns

and

ho

pel

essn

ess

SD

.63

.68

.40

.45

.43

.61

.67

.76

.58

.64

4.1

60��

Per

ceiv

edP

re-

M4

.35

3.8

93

.85

4.1

34

.14

3.9

84

.22

4.1

14

.36

4.6

1so

cio

po

liti

cal

SD

1.1

3.9

9.9

2.5

61

.04

1.0

8.8

2.9

71

.01

.81

1.1

60�

Inte

rest

Po

st-

M4

.38

3.9

74

.17

4.2

63

.74

4.1

14

.47

4.4

04

.55

4.5

53

.56

.06

2.0

14

.05

1.7

24

.05

SD

1.1

3.9

1.7

9.7

91

.11

1.0

3.8

91

.00

.83

.90

4.1

60��

aF

acto

r(T

ime)

wit

h1

.16

0d

egre

eso

ffr

eed

om

.bIn

tera

ctio

n(T

ime�

Tea

cher

;T

ime�

Tre

atm

ent�

Tea

cher

)w

ith

4.1

60

deg

rees

of

free

do

m.



Tabl

e6

.A

NO

VA(M

ixed

Des

ign

)C

onsi

der

ing

the

Imp

act

ofD

iffe

ren

tTe

ach

ers

onVa

riou

sFo

rms

ofE

ffica

cyin

Face

-to-

Face

(FtF

)a

nd

On

lin

e(O

L)

Gro

up

s

Teac

her]1

Teac

her]2

Teac

her]3

Teac

her]4

Teac

her]5

Tim

eaT

ime�

Teac

herb

Tim

e�

Tre

atm

ent�

Teac

herb

Tim

eS

core

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

FtF

OL

dfF

pF

pF

p

Per

ceiv

edP

re-

M3

.78

3.5

13

.65

3.7

03

.74

3.7

63

.58

3.6

73

.75

3.7

2ac

adem

icS

D.5

0.6

0.3

9.3

9.4

4.4

5.3

8.5

1.4

9.5

81

.16

0�

self

-effi

cacy

Po

st-

M3

.77

3.7

13

.71

3.8

83

.74

3.8

33

.64

3.7

13

.92

3.7

67

.66

o.0

1.2

74

.05

1.0

04

.05

SD

.40

.55

.42

.56

.46

.57

.57

.54

.48

.49

4.1

60��

Per

ceiv

edP

re-

M3

.58

3.3

33

.24

3.3

13

.31

3.4

33

.47

3.4

23

.55

3.4

5so

cial

effi

cacy

SD

.62

.61

.53

.65

.52

.66

.40

.72

.61

.60

1.1

60�

Po

st-

M3

.63

3.6

53

.49

3.3

63

.40

3.6

63

.79

3.5

83

.64

3.6

44

0.6

1o

.00

1.5

24

.05

2.6

34

.05

SD

.62

.75

.47

.57

.42

.71

.50

.70

.58

.67

4.1

60��

Per

ceiv

edP

re-

M4

.92

4.8

04

.57

4.9

04

.71

4.8

94

.76

4.8

05

.04

4.8

5se

lf-e

ffica

cyS

D.5

5.6

0.5

8.6

1.5

5.5

2.6

0.7

7.7

7.7

11

.16

0�

for

pro

ble

mP

ost

-M

5.2

45

.03

4.8

14

.95

4.8

15

.46

5.1

95

.17

5.2

75

.07

53

.07

o.0

01

1.3

44

.05

2.1

84

.05

solv

ing

SD

.71

.78

.65

.63

.61

.60

.67

.81

.77

.80

4.1

60��

aF

acto

r(T

ime)

wit

h1

.16

0d

egre

eso

ffr

eed

om

.bIn

tera

ctio

n(T

ime�

Tea

cher

;T

ime�

Tre

atm

ent�

Tea

cher

)w

ith

4.1

60

deg

rees

of

free

do

m.



theoretical hypothesis about the role each can play, that could be tested in furtherstudies.

As several theories underline, collaborative learning has many benefits. Vygotsky(1978) maintains that each internal cognitive change is due to the effect of a socialinteraction. Therefore, interaction between children and adults and between peers iscrucial in promoting learning. Constructivism based on Piaget’s theories, emphasizesthe importance of context during the construction of knowledge and the role of socialinteraction in promoting learning (Doise & Mugny, 1984). Situation–cognition theoryconsiders learning as a process of entry in a community of practice and links togetherthe specific context and the knowledge to be learned (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,1989).

The increase in the perceived efficacy scales and in the two subscales ofempowerment, which measure the perceived capacity to achieve aims and thetendency to feel hopeful or hopeless, could be due largely to the collaborativemethodology. Many authors underline how collaborative learning in which studentshave to choose aims, procedures, make decisions about allocating tasks, perform them,and produce a final product favors the development of meta-capacities such asunderstanding team processes, being able to be solve conflicts, and integrate differentopinions (Gray et al., 2004; Ligorio et al., 2002; Klobas & Renzi 2000; McPherson &Nunes, 2004; Salmon, 2000; Young, 2004).

We can hypothesize that collaborative learning did help our students exchangeideas and skills both in the asynchronous online and face-to-face setting—each havepeculiar advantages and limits. For instance, Rudestam (2004) maintains thatasynchronous online learning activities found in distributed learning institutions ismore compatible with a model of pedagogy that emphasizes small group discussions,collaborative problems solving, reflective inquiry, competency-based outcomes, andthe facilitator role of the instructor. He also suggests applying these computer-basedlearning tools to the training of clinical psychologists. On the other hand, supporters offace-to-face learning settings think that the physical presence of a teacher and otherstudents could represent a ‘‘modeling asset’’ when transferring not only knowledge,but also psychological professional competencies, such as interviewing skills, groupprocess facilitation, etc., which are also based on nonverbal behaviors (such as tone ofvoice, posture, facial expressions; Phoha, 1999; Saunders & Weible, 1999). Furtherstudies could explore also specific advantages of face to face or asynchronous learningsettings for increasing these forms of empowerment and self efficacies with varioustypes of students.

The increase in perceived sociopolitical empowerment in our students may havebeen favored as some authors (Amerio, 2004; Lavanco, 2001; Mannarini, 2004;Menezes et al., 2007) suggest also by the different world views offered by communitypsychology principles, which underline the interaction between personal, relational,and collective well-being. We think however, that a major role in increasing students’sociopolitical awareness may have been played by their actual involvement in acommunity evaluation. Students who learn community profiling, have an opportunityto meet many different people from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds, to heardifferent groups underline different strengths and weaknesses of their community,and they can ‘‘see’’ the tie between individual well being and social conditions. Takingactive part in an evaluation of the strong and weak points of a local communityprobably favors an increase of sociopolitical interest as the authors of this methodologysuggest (Martini & Sequi 1988, 1995).



In our studies participants were mainly women because in Italy and in mostWestern countries, psychology majors are predominantly women. It would beinteresting to explore if the gender gap in political interest in favor of men, stillfound in many countries (Stevens, 2007) could be reduced, increasing women’sperceived sociopolitical empowerment, using the intervention strategies discussed.

REFERENCES

Amerio, P. (2004). Problemi umani in comunita di massa: una psicologia tra clinica e politica[Human problems in mass community: Psychology between clinical and political]. Torino:Einaudi.

Angelique, H.L., Reischl, T.M., & Davidson II, W.S. (2002). Promoting political empowerment:Evaluation of an intervention with university students. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 30(6), 815–833.

Bandura, A. (1989). The Multidimensional Self-Efficacy Scales. Unpublished test, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, California.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2005). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (revised). Available from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Se-GuideRev-Bandura-2005.html.

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses.Tallahasee FL, FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference—June 1996. Available at http//jan.ucc.nan.edu/~mpc3/moderate/flcc.html

Bocconi, S., & Pozzi, F. (1999). Un modello di comunicazione del formatore in rete [A trainingmodel for network operator]. Tecnologie didattiche, 18(3), 25–36.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Research, 18, 32–42.

Buzzi, C., Cavalli, A., & De Lillo, A. (Eds.). (2002). Giovani nel nuovo secolo. Quinto RapportoIard sulla condizione giovanile in Italia [Youth of 21th century. Fifth early report Iard onthe condition of young people in Italy]. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Caprara, G.V., Gerbino, M., & Delle Fratte, A. (2001). Autoefficacia interpersonale [Inter-personal self-efficacy]. In G.V. Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione dell’autoefficacia [Self-efficacyevaluation] (pp. 51–61). Trento: Erickson.

Choi, N., Fuqua, D.R., & Griffin, B.W. (2001). Exploratory analysis of the structure of scoresfrom the multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 61(3), 475–489.

Clifford, E.F., & Green, V.P. (1996). The mentor–protege relationship as a factor in preserviceteacher education: A review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 125,73–83.

Cole, E.R., Zucker, A.N., & Ostrove, J.M. (1998). Political participation and feministconsciousness among women activists of the 1960’s. Political Psychology, 19(2), 349–371.

Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Donnely, P.G., & Majka, T.J. (1998). Residents’ efforts at neighborhood stabilization: Facing thechallenges of inner-city neighborhoods. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 189–213.

Draves, W. (2000). Teaching on-line. River Falls, WI: Lern Books.

Fletcher, K.M. (2005). Self-efficacy as an evaluation measure for programs in support of onlinelearning literacy for undergraduates. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 307–322.

Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in communitydevelopment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689–708.



Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Keys, C.B. (1997). The person/environment dynamics of employeeempowerment: An organizational culture analysis. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 25(3), 345–369.

Foster-Fishman, P.G., Salem, D., Chibnall, S., Legler, R., & Yapchai, C. (1998). Empirical supportfor the critical assumptions of empowerment theory. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 26(4), 507–536.

Fource Fernandez, J.G. (2002). Juventud y participation sociopolitica en la decade de los, 90[Youth and political participation in the nineties]. Madrid: Universitad Complutense,Dipartimento de Psicologia Social.

Francescato, D. (2007). Community psychology core competencies taught at the undergraduateand master’s level in some Italian universities and in most non-academically based master’sprogram. Journal of Community Psychology, 4, 49–52.

Francescato, D. (2008). To give psychology away takes a lot of theoretical and practical training.Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 1, 41–44.

Francescato, D., Mebane, M.E., Sorace, R., Vecchione, M., & Tomai, M. (2007). EMPO: Una scaladi misurazione dell’empowerment personale e politico [EMPO: A scale measuring personaland political empowerment]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 2, 465–487.

Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M.E., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006).Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supporteduniversity contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 163–176.

Francescato, D., Mebane, M.E., Porcelli, R., Attanasio, C., & Pulino, M. (2007). Developingprofessional skills and social capital through computer supported collaborative learning inuniversity contexts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 140–152.

Francescato, D., & Tomai, M. (2001). Community psychology: Should there be a Europeanperspective? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 371–380.

Francescato, D., Tomai, M., & Mebane, M.E. (2004). Psicologia di comunita per la scuola,l’orientamento e la formazione. Esperienze faccia a faccia ed online [Community psychologyfor education, training and orientation. Face to face and online experiences]. Bologna: IlMulino.

Francescato, D., Tomai, M., & Mebane, M.E. (2006). Psicologıa comunitaria en la ensenanza y laorientacion [Community psychology for education, training and orientation]. Madrid:Narcea, S. A. De Ediciones.

Fyson, S.J. (1999). Developing and applying concepts about community: Reflections from thefield. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3), 347–365.

Gerhardt, M.W., & Brown, K.G. (2006). Individual differences in self-efficacy development: Theeffects of goal orientation and affectivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 43–59.

Goker, S.D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFLteacher education. System, 34, 239–254.

Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of TechnologyEducation, 7, 1.

Gray, D.E., Ryan, M., & Coulon, A. (2004). The training of teachers and trainers: Innovativepractices, skills and competencies in the use of eLearning. European Journal of Open,Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrb/2004/Gray_Ryan_Coulon.htm

Harasim, L.M., & Yung, B. (1993). Teaching and learning on the Internet. Burnaby, Canada:Simon Fraser University.

Heller, K., Price, R.H., Reinhartz, S., Riger, S., & Wasserman, A. (1984). Psychology andcommunity change: Challenges of the future (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Hinkle, S., Fox-Cardamone, L., Haseleu, J.A., Brown, R., & Irwin, L. (1996). Grassroots politicalaction as an intergroup phenomenon. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 39–51.



Kelly, J.G. (1986). Context and process: An ecological view of the interdependence of practiceand research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 581–589.

Kieffer, C. (1982). The emergence of empowerment: The development of participatorycompetence among individuals in citizen organization. Division of Community PsychologyNewsletter, 2, 13–14.

Klobas, J., & Renzi, S. (2000). Students’ psychological responses to a course supported bycollaborative learning technologies: Measurement and preliminary results. The GraduateSchool of Management Discussion Papers Series, 2000-2/3. Nedlands, Western Australia:Graduate School of Management.

Lavanco, G. (2001). Oltre la politica. Psicologia di comunita, giovani e partecipazione [Beyondpolitics. Community psychology, youth and political and civic participation]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Ligorio, M.B., Talamo, A., & Simons, R.J. (2002). Synchronic tutoring of a community on-line.Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(2), 137–152.

Lombardi, S., Forte, G., Di Nocera, F., Sementina, C., & Renzi, P. (2004). Tutoring matters:Investigating the role of communication on e-Learning effectiveness. Paper presented atInternational Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, FAST, Milan, Italy,November.

Mannarini, T. (2004). Comunitae partecipazione [Community and participation]. Milano:Franco Angeli.

Martini, E.R., & Sequi, R. (1988). Il lavoro nella comunita [Community work]. Rome: Carocci.

Martini, E.R., & Sequi, R. (1995). La comunita locale. Approcci teorici e criteri di intervento[Local communities. Theoretical approach and intervention guidelines]. Rome: NIS.

Maton, K.I. (1993). The biannual conference: A foundation of empowerment? The CommunityPsychologist, 27, 29–31.

Maton, K.I., & Salem, D.A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering communitysettings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5), 631–656.

McGee, P., & Boyd, V. (1995). Computer-mediated communication: Facilitating dialogues.Technology and Teacher Education, Annual 1995, 643–647.

McPherson, M., & Nunes, M.B. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learningsupport. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, vol. I. Retrieved April 16,2006, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP.html

Mebane, M.E., Sorace, R., & Vecchione, M. (2006). Determinanti della partecipazione edell’alienazione politica giovanile: Un contributo alla validazione di due scale motivazionali[Factors affecting political participation and political alienation: Validation of twomotivational scales]. Testing Psicometria Metodologia, 13, 193–208.

Menezes, I., Coimbra, J.L., & Campos, B.P. (Eds.). (2007). The affective dimension of education:European perspectives. Lisboa, Portugal: FCT Fundac-ao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia.

Montero, M., & Varas Diaz, N. (2007). Latin America community psychology: Development,implications and challenges within a social change agenda. In S. Reich, M. Reimer, I.Prilleltensky, & M. Montero (Eds.), International Community Psychology. Theory andHistories (pp. 63–98). New York: Springer.

Nelson, T., & McFadzean, E. (1998). Facilitating problem-solving groups facilitator competences.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 72–82.

Orford, J., Duckett, P., & McKenna, S. (2003). European community psychology in theory,practice and praxis? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 258–265.

Pastorelli, C., & Picconi, L. (2001). Autoefficacia scolastica, sociale e regolatoria [School self-efficacy, social self-efficacy and behavior control self-efficacy]. In G.V. Caprara (Ed.), Lavalutazione dell’autoefficacia [Self-efficacy evaluation] (pp. 87–104). Trento: Erickson.



Pastorelli, C., Vecchio, M.G., & Boda, G. (2001). Autoefficacia nelle life skills: Soluzione deiproblemi e comunicazione interpersonale [Life skills self-efficacy: Problem solving andinterpersonal communication]. In G.V. Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione dell’autoefficacia [Self-efficacy evaluation] (pp. 137–156). Trento: Erickson.

Perkins, D.D., Brown, B.B., & Taylor, R.B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predictingparticipation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 85–110.

Phoha, V. (1999). Can a course be taught entirely by email? Communication of the ACM, 42(9),29–30.

Pickering, J. (1995). Teaching on the internet is learning. Active Learning-Using the Internet forTeaching, 12, 9–12.

Rahn, W.M., & Transue, J. (1998). Social trust and value change: The decline of social capital inamerican youth, 1976–1995. Political Psychology, 19, 545–565.

Rossi, G. (2003). Le famiglie dei giovani-adulti volontari e la trasmissione fra le generazioni: Stilirelazionali a confronto [Young volunteers families and intergenerational transmission:Confronting interpersonal relationship styles]. In L. Boccacin & E. Marta (Eds.), Giovani-adulti, famiglia e volontariato [Young adults, families and volunteer work] (pp. 65–97).Milano: Unicopli.

Rudestam, K.E. (2004). Distributed education and the role of on-line earning in trainingprofessional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 427–432.

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: KoganPage.

Sanchez Vidal, A., Zambrano Constanzo, A., & Palacın, M. (Eds.). (2004). European communitypsychology: Community, ethics, and values. Barcelona: Publicacions Universitat deBarcelona.

Saunders, G., & Weible, R. (1999). Electronic courses: Old wine in new bottlers? InternetResearch, 9(5), 339–347.

Sensales, G., Chirumbolo, A., & Areni, A. (2002). Giovani e politica [Young people and politics].Rome: Edizioni Kappa.

Shepherd, C. (2000a). Evaluating on-line learning. Brighton, UK: Fastrak Consulting.

Shepherd, C. (2000b). The real time on-line docente. Brighton, UK: Fastrak Consulting.

Smith, H.M., & Betz, N.E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived socialefficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283–301.

Stevens, A. (2007). Women, Power and Politics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Stewart, A.J., Settles, I.H., & Winter, N.J.G. (1998). Women and the social movements of the1960’s: Activists, engaged observers, and nonparticipants. Political Psychology, 19(1), 63–94.

Stokols, D. (1986). The research psychologist as social change agent. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 14(6), 595–599.

Unrau, Y.A., & Beck, A.R. (2004). Increasing research self-efficacy among students inprofessional academic programs. Innovative Higher Education, 28(3), 187–204.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Watters, J.J., & Ginns, I.S. (1995). Origins of, and changes in pre-service teachers’ scienceteaching self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association forResearch and Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, April 22–25.

Wittig, M.A. (1996). An introduction to social psychological perspectives in grassrootsorganizing. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 3–14.

Young, S.S.C. (2004). In search of on-line pedagogical models: Investigating a paradigm changein teaching through the School for All community. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,20, 133–150.



Zimmerman, M.A. (1989). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation:Construct validation studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 554–566.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction betweenindividual and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,18, 169–177.

Zimmerman, M.A., Israel, B.B., Schultz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further exploration inempowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 19, 707–727.

Zimmerman, M., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, andpsychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.

Zorfass, J., Remz, A., Gold, J., Ethier, D., & Corley, P. (1998). Strategies to ensure that on-linefacilitators are successful. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www2.edc.org/NCIP/facilitation.pdf.



Documents

Increasing students' perceived sociopolitical empowerment through online and face-to-face community psychology seminars