Main Cross-Cutting Training Contents of LEISURE and Free Time Schools: Acceptance of Groups Involved in the Leisure Time Instructor Courses

Abstract

Time atomisation trends, leisure economy, and social and technological changes are causing a reframe of the leisure and free-time industry. This study aims to analyse the assessment of nine cross-cutting contents by the main agents involved in leisure-time instructor courses, and a group of young subjects in Spain. The study sample consisted of 1049 individuals, including management and technical teams, leisure and free-time schoolteachers, leisure and free-time school students (receiving the leisure-time instructor course), and finally a group of external young subjects. An ad hoc questionnaire was used, and the results were analysed through a correlational study using contingency tables and chi-square and Somers’ D statistics, Spearman’s correlation to determine within-population correlations, and the Kruskal–Wallis test to establish that these relationships were not randomly established. The results show that all the analysed agents valued the training proposal of cross-cutting contents as a consolidated item. This indicates that the nine cross-cutting contents should be maintained in these courses. Social Skills content was crowned as the defining content of this training, and there was dissonance in the ICT-Use content, which was not highly valued by main agents but was highly valued by young people, leading to the need to review this content to adjust it to the real needs of the young population.

1. Introduction

Leisure can take many forms, meanings, and natures, which are continuously changing [1,2]. Leisure contributes to the search for meaning in people’s lives [3]. It is focused on human development, what people can do and be [4] based on their opportunities [5] to give meaning to their life [6].

However, we live in an atomised time that slips away from us because nothing is concluded [7]. Leisure has become an unstoppable and insufferable experience of doing everything, but at the same time doing nothing. Daily routines deprive human beings of the capacity for permanence and the faculty of contemplation.

As opposed to this kind of leisure, pedagogy and social education develop a kind of education in leisure and free time, the purpose of which is to increase the will to build, pedagogically and socially, a society centred on human rights and educational opportunities throughout life. Leisure can play a key role in addressing issues of social justice, such as power relations, oppression, marginalisation, exclusion, and inclusion. As shown by various studies related to leisure and at-risk youth, leisure also allows us to combat certain social problems such as violence, criminal recidivism, and poverty [8,9].

From pedagogy, there are so many leisure opportunities that sometimes only the analysis of these options can help to better understand the importance of leisure and the positive impact it can have on our health and well-being [10]. Therefore, it is necessary for current education, which is increasingly mobile, and our daily life, which is intensely digital [11], to demand a review of our educational practices to find out whether they respond to the intersections, ambivalences, and frictions involved in parallel participation in multiple contexts and activities co-located and mediated by technologies [12]. It is only with leisure and free-time education that people can be prepared and empowered to be aware of the options available to them so that they can develop their full potential and goals, and thus improve their quality of life. Therefore, good “leisure and free time” education can help people use their free time more efficiently.

Leisure education is a central element in the lives of young people and encompasses physical, mental, and emotional activities [13]. Leisure activities can provide an important opportunity for informal learning, knowledge, and life skills. Therefore, considering the distinctive characteristics of leisure as a freely chosen, self-determined/autonomous, and intrinsically motivated engagement, we can say that leisure plays an important role in the creation of meaning and engagement.

In Spain, educational practice through leisure and free-time activities is learned in leisure and free-time schools. Their training background dates back to 1940 [14], but it was not until 1982 that the rules regulating these schools were approved. Their incorporation into the Spanish Qualifications Framework (MECU) through “Sociocultural and Community Services” is the evidence of their evolution as an important statement in social development.

Subsequently, the professional profiles that are trained in these schools, mainly instructors and leisure and free-time coordinators, are described in the “I State Framework Collective Agreement for Educational Leisure and Sociocultural Animation” that was registered and published in 2015 [15]. This was an important milestone for this kind of education.

Specifically, the training of leisure and free-time instructors is based on individual freedom, since young people voluntarily choose to carry out this training, which has a more social than individual perspective [16], but which is at the same time dependent on their particular aspects of personal realisation and identity—and all of this to be a person who brings satisfactory experiences to their community. In return, the training fields bring valuable and humanistic leisure experiences to the young people who experience them [17,18].

From the perspective of the great importance that the content has on the training of future leisure-time professionals, it is necessary to determine the contents included in the training of future educators.

Positive leisure experiences can serve as a point of reference to select the contents to be covered in this training. In the following, various areas in which leisure practices are developed and their contribution to the development of young people are presented.

Educational practice through leisure and free-time activities focuses on promoting the ability to develop social, interpersonal, and collaborative skills from community opportunities. It favours reflection on identity, prosocial norms, and the development of community bonds, which can be a useful tool to address complex social problems.

Empirical studies indicate a positive relationship between participation in structured activities such as school clubs or sports, and higher educational achievement [19]. They include associationism and citizen participation. There are numerous studies in which associations served as forums for political education and they describe the relationship between citizen participation in democracy through the yield of leisure [20]. The wealth of communities is built in part through associations that energise the environment and contribute to enhancing the civic experience and skills of citizens.

We can detail how physical sports-related leisure is an ideal resource for developing self-concept and self-esteem, values that promote the assumption of responsibility, decision-making capacity, tolerance to frustration, and the development of resilience [21]. Besides, it offers values and inspiration for life and coexistence.

Outdoor leisure improves motivation and enjoyment, and it is related to studies and experiences on environmental education and sustainability that demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge, self-efficiency, and environmental awareness.

Active leisure involves awareness and development of a critical consciousness towards the social environment. It will lead to a love for nature and the desire for its preservation. Furthermore, active leisure promotes a respect for diversity.

In this sense, immigrant leisure goes beyond co-adapting and adapting to the stress of acculturation, and involves self-realisation and self-expression, among others. In that sense, educational leisure and free-time activities include experiences that promote intercultural relationships between people and their spatial environments. Above all, leisure can provide a context/space where people can maintain or promote a connected life that can become a meaningful life.

Educational leisure activities encourage local cultural knowledge because they promote its appreciation and preservation. However, there is evidence that leisure is limited by contextual restrictions rooted in cultural belief systems [22]. Leisure activities in children and young people depend on cultural processes in society. In this respect, neighbourhoods can offer support and facilitate the formation of identity and a sense of belonging.

Leisure activities can be used as actions for the prevention, management, or treatment of mental and physical illnesses and can provide mechanisms for coping with stress [23]. An analysis of leisure showed that especially in people with a disability, it increases positive emotions such as enjoyment and serenity [24]. The outcomes of meaningful leisure experiences show a close relationship with human growth.

Therefore, we can deduce that there is a close relationship between including leisure activities in the promotion of health education and emotional education.

Leisure is a vital source for people with disabilities to find meaning in their lives. Leisure activities enhance the perception of freedom and independence. The meaning behind the leisure experience is unique for each person, depending on preferences, personality, and circumstances.

In this line of research, the leisure tree emerged as a useful metaphor for three essential characteristics (control, fascination, and enjoyment) and four key meanings (escape, exploration, exchange, and expression); therefore, it is necessary to understand the patterns and determinants of leisure activity participation, barriers, and participation facilitators [25].

ICT use expands the possibilities of educational practices through leisure and free-time activities. To understand leisure currently, it is necessary to understand the intensification of digital culture across digital forms, structures, and platforms [26]. Universities are beginning to be aware of the crucial role of emerging technologies in the formation of young people [27], so it easy to understand how these practices and knowledge are radically modifying leisure practices, cultures, and experiences. We are just beginning to understand how the introduction of digital technologies and digital leisure cultures can impact everyday life and social transformation.

For all of the above, it is worth asking whether the contents of the training offered by leisure and free-time schools are adequate for the demands of young people, whether there is coherence between the contents taught in the training of instructors and the expectations of the students of these courses, and whether the people involved in this training—managers/technicians, trainers, and students of leisure and free-time schools, as well as young people—give value to the contents that are taught.

In response to all these questions, this research has two objectives: (1) to show the assessments of the main professional agents involved in leisure and free-time training and the assessments of young people in relation to the nine cross-cutting contents, and (2) to evaluate the significance of the relationships established between the nine different cross-cutting contents, taking into account the different groups consulted. The first objective is purely descriptive, whereas the second deals with the inferential analysis of the reality under study.

2. Materials and Methods

After a review of the essential transversal contents taught by leisure and free-time schools in the training of instructors, a descriptive and cross-sectional study was initially carried out of the opinions of the four populations most directly related to this training, focusing on analysing the relevance of nine cross-cutting contents common to all schools at a national level. Once the descriptive study of the reality was completed, the aim was to evaluate to evaluate and compare the evaluations and differences that could appear in a second inferential phase of the study.

For this purpose, on the one hand, a correlational study was carried out by means of contingency tables, using the chi-square and Somers’ D statistics. The chi-square was used to establish the significance of the correlations and to assess the independence of the representative samples of the different populations, whereas Somers’ D was used to assess the possible directionality of each correlation and to evaluate the size of its effect. On the other hand, Spearman’s correlation was used to establish the correlations within each of the four populations evaluated, as it allows for a quantitative analysis using ordinal variables and contributes to improving the validity of a study.

Next, in order to establish whether the differences between the four populations in the evaluation of the cross-sectional contents were due to chance, a Kruskal–Wallis test was carried out, taking Participant Type as the grouping variable.

2.1. Participants

Four populations participated in this study. First was the population of the management/technical teams of leisure and free-time schools throughout the country (n = 471). Second and third was the population of trainers and students of leisure and free time in those schools throughout the country. Last was a population of young people throughout the country that had no contact, either in the past or present, with any specific training in a leisure and free-time school.

All the people who participated in this study did so freely and voluntarily, and at the beginning they filled out an informed consent form, in which they were informed of the confidentiality and the maintenance of anonymity in the questionnaires, as well as throughout the process, in accordance with European data-protection regulations. The code of good practice in research (CBPR) was applied, so they were informed personally and/or telematically of the ethical principles of the research and of the possibility of exercising their rights of access, rectification, cancellation, and opposition with respect to the personal data obtained. Finally, the results were communicated through the same channels through which the initial contact was established with each school and young person.

The sampling carried out was non-probabilistic convenience sampling. It was based on a national register of leisure and free-time schools and an attempt was made to make contact with each one of them.

To obtain the sample, the total number of leisure and free-time schools throughout the country was contacted by telephone and/or e-mail. Responses were obtained from 54 schools. In the end, 25 agreed to participate in the research. The schools were from 11 autonomous communities in Spain (Europe).

The participating schools were responsible for distributing the questionnaires to the population of trainers and students of leisure and free-time schools by means of a non-probabilistic convenience sampling.

The management/technical teams of these conglomerates undertook to complete the school questionnaires, and to distribute the questionnaires for trainers and students of leisure and free-time schools among their schools/conglomerates.

Finally, there was a total sample of 1049 participants structured in four sampling units: 25 leisure and free-time school (LFTS) management and technical teams, 95 leisure and free-time school teachers (LFTST), 350 leisure and free-time school students (LFTSS), and 579 external young people with respect to LFTS. The first sampling unit was 25 leisure and free-time school (LFTS) management and technical teams: mostly associative (48%) from 11 autonomous communities. The second sample was composed of 95 teachers at leisure and free-time schools: male (84%) and female (16%). In the sample there were found to be teachers with university studies related to social and legal sciences (94%), training as monitors (81%), and coordinators of leisure and free-time teams (57%). In relation to the experience as a trainers of these types of courses, 75% had experience of between 2 and 5 years (75%). Although 94% were active, their jobs were not related to sociocultural animation in almost half of them (47%).

The student sample was composed of 350 students: male (71%) and female (29%). Half of them (46.86%) had worked in sociocultural animation, on either a voluntary or paid basis.

The third sample was formed by 579 external young people at secondary school and young university students who answered the questionnaire. The questionnaires for young people were carried out by means of a non-probabilistic sampling of intentional or deliberate convenience where the subjects who were desired to participate in the research were directly selected.

Table 1. Sample description.

Participants	n	%
Leisure and Free-Time School Management and Technical Teams	25	2.4
Leisure and free-time school teachers	95	9
Leisure and free-time school students	350	33.4
Young people	579	55.2
TOTAL	1049	100.0
Leisure and Free-Time School Financing	n	%
Public	4	16
Private	21	84
TOTAL	25	100
Participant Gender	n	%
Men	466	45.5
Women	558	54.5
TOTAL	1024	100
LFTS Teacher Age (years)	n	%
17 to 21	2	2.1
22 to 25	6	6.3
26 to 30	54	56.8
>31	33	34.7
TOTAL	95	100.0
LFTS Student Age (years)	n	%
13 to 16	43	12.3
17 to 21	177	50.6
22 to 25	54	15.4
26 to 30	40	11.4
>31	36	10.3
TOTAL	350	100.0
Young People Sample Age (years)	n	%
≤12	8	1.4
13 to 16	445	76.9
17 to 21	105	18.1
22 to 25	13	2.2
≥26	8	1.4
TOTAL	579	100.0
TOTAL SAMPLE	1049	100.0

below shows the distribution of the sample according to the attributive variables considered in this study.

2.2. Evaluation Variables and Instruments

The main variable of the study was Participant Type, and it served to differentiate the obtained responses. This was a nominal variable with four categories: trainers and students of 25 leisure and free-time schools, and young people who were potential users of leisure and free-time activities.

The participants’ responses were measured in nine ordinal variables using a Likert-type scale with 5 categories. The highest score was associated with the highest level of agreement with the variable.

This investigation analysed nine cross-cutting contents. Seven of the nine variables were extracted from a previous analysis of the transversal contents in the leisure and free-time curricular programmes: (1) Culture Contents, referring to local and regional historical, artistic, cultural, and ecological manifestations and heritage; (2) Social Skills, as the interpersonal competencies that favour communication, conflict resolution, and learning group dynamics and techniques; (3) Associationism, according to participation in the community—therefore, being part or forming part of the community to which one belongs and getting involved in collective actions or projects; (4) Healthcare Education, referring to be a part of health and care activities aimed at achieving physical, psychological, and social well-being through individual and collective actions; (5) Environmental Education, according to the relationship we establish with nature and what it entails and becoming aware of our reality in the world; (6) Intercultural Education, understood as a set of social customs and habits through an open and integrating perspective with attitudes of respect and appreciation towards all cultures; and (7) Disability Contents, understood not as something “limiting” despite having deficits, limitations in activity, and restrictions to participation that must be take into account in leisure and free-time teaching.

Two variables were added: (8) ICT Use in Leisure and Free Time was proposed due to the growing relationship of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the lifestyle of young people, and includes use of the internet, video games, and cell phones in leisure and free time, and (9) Emotional Education, which involves good control of internal emotions and learning how to manage them in relationships with other people. Variable (8) was proposed in the questionnaire validation process.

Figure 1 summarises the three main stages of the study: (1) identification of the nine cross-cutting contents, (2) construction and distribution of a questionnaire, and (3) how many people participated and who.

The instrument was validated by experts, and all questions were adapted in four versions for each group of participants. Questionnaire A was intended for the management/technical teams of the leisure and free-time schools, questionnaire B for teachers of the instructor courses, questionnaire C for the students of these courses, and questionnaire D for young people. The first part of each of the questionnaires collected descriptive data on each group.

Questionnaire A consisted of the type of school and the autonomous community to which it belonged. Questionnaire B collected data on age, gender, nationality, studies, training related to sociocultural animation, working profile, and contents taught in the courses. Questionnaire C collected data on age, gender, nationality, studies, possession of the title of leisure and free-time instructor, work experience as a monitor, current job, and motivation and expectations for this training. Finally, questionnaire D collected data on gender, age, nationality, and studies completed.

The second part of each questionnaire asked about the importance they attached to the nine cross-cutting contents of the leisure and free-time programmes mentioned above.

We checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire by using Cronbach’s alfa, with excellent results in the four questionnaires (questionnaire A α: 0.903; questionnaire B α: 0.876; questionnaire C α: 0.836; questionnaire D α: 0.691), which confirmed a high correlation between the nine cross-cutting contents under study. Lastly, we checked the normality of the sample distribution according to the variables measured in order to determine whether there was a need for a parametric approach.

Table 2. Normality tests for assessed variables.

	Asym.	Std. Error	Kurt.	Std. Error	K–S
Culture Contents	−0.485	−0.076	−0.307	0.151	0.214 **
Emotional Education	−0.861	−0.076	0.371	0.151	0.222 **
Social Skills	−1325	−0.076	1837	0.151	0.315 **
Associationism	−0.775	−0.076	0.446	0.151	0.230 **
Health Education	−0.798	−0.076	−0.068	0.151	0.217 **
ICT Use	−0.670	−0.076	−0.021	0.151	0.222 **
Environmental Education	−0.625	−0.076	−0.073	0.151	0.212 **
Intercultural Education	−0.654	−0.076	−0.230	0.151	0.207 **
Disability Contents	−0.652	−0.076	−0.284	0.151	0.197 **

** The correlation is significant at the level of 0.01.

shows the scores as asymmetry (Asym.), kurtosis (Kurt.), standard error (Std. Error), and the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test and their significance concerning the potential normality of our variables.

As can be observed in the results above (Table 2), concerning the K–S test, all the distributions of the variables measured showed a distribution different than normal. Considering the number of participants (n = 1049) was considerable, we could not assume normality concerning the study results and, thus, analysed the findings through statistical non-parametric contrasts such as Chi-Square, Somers’ D, Spearman correlation, and the Kruskal–Wallis test.

3. Results

In response to the first research objective, Table 2 shows the descriptive results obtained in the study using the arithmetic mean and standard deviation as statistics.

Table 2 shows a high stability of responses to the questionnaires, which seems to indicate a great coincidence in the results, despite the different points of view and interests of the different groups.

The Social Skills contents were the most highly valued by the groups consulted, although the teachers gave it a higher score than the other groups. Emotional education has not been contemplated yet in the regulations of leisure and free-time training programmes, but it was highly valued by teachers, followed by students, and finally FTLS and young people equally. Although the vast majority of the contents were rated above 3, it should be noted that young people gave less value to Disability Contents and Intercultural Education. It should also be noted that Associationism in relation to citizen participation was highly valued by students and young people in general, whereas schools and teachers did not attach as much importance to it. A dissonant value was found in the valuation of ICT Use in Leisure and Free-Time Programmes, where schools, teachers, and students rated it in last place, whereas young people considered it a priority, even above Social Skills contents. It should be noted that schools gave ICT Use the lowest score of all the contents.

Figure 2, presented below, visually reflects the descriptive results to clearly show the trends observed in the results shown in Table 2.

Figure 2 clearly shows how the greatest difference in the responses of the participants was in relation to the relevance in learning about ICT use. On the other hand, young people showed a smaller dispersion of results, especially in comparison with the responses obtained in leisure and free-time schools.

The differences observed in the relevance given to the use of ICTs could reflect the generational leap and the different point of view existing between the new generations of young people and the formal training in leisure and free-time training centres.

In order to specify in greater detail the differences obtained in the results, Figure 3 shows the results obtained for the four groups when taking into account each of the variables individually.

The specific graphs in Figure 3 show a great coincidence in the results for all the groups in all the variables evaluated. Only the “leisure and free-time schools” group showed small differences for some contents, especially when compared to the young population sample, but it should be noted that the sample was considerably smaller (n = 25).

To confirm the scientific significance of the trends observed in the descriptive and visual results shown, it was necessary show the inferential results of the study to respond to the second research objective and assess the correlations between the different variables studied globally, as can be seen in

Table 3. Means and standard deviations according to the study participants.

	LFTS Schools		LFTS Teachers		LFTS Students		Young People
	Media	SD	Media	SD	Media	SD	Media	SD
Culture Contents	3.32	0.98	3.62	0.98	3.80	0.95	3.71	1.06
Emotional Education	3.92	1.08	4.38	0.87	4.23	0.89	3.76	1.02
Social Skills	4.20	0.96	4.60	0.71	4.39	0.77	4.31	0.83
Associationism	3.84	1.07	3.95	1.00	4.27	0.87	3.89	0.87
Health Education	4.20	1.12	4.25	0.84	4.13	0.85	3.76	1.15
ICT Use	2.88	1.09	3.53	0.91	3.63	1.04	3.98	0.99
Environmental Education	3.92	0.95	4.29	0.81	3.98	0.92	3.75	1.02
Intercultural Education	4.04	1.02	4.25	0.91	4.13	0.90	3.46	1.15
Disability Contents	3.88	0.93	4.31	0.91	4.04	1.09	3.58	1.09

SD = standard deviation.

.

Table 4. Contingency table (chi-square/Somers’ D).

	P	CC	EE	SS	A	HE	ICT	EA	IE	D.
Participant (P)	-	15.43 0.01	76.6 ** −0.22 **	20.24 −0.07 **	63.26 ** −0.14 **	53.42 ** −0.15 **	75.24 ** 0.19 **	41.87 ** −0.14**	109.05 ** −0.27 **	80.8 ** −0.21 **
Culture Content (CC)		-	164.33 ** 0.27 **	71.71 ** 0.18 **	217 * 0.23 **	132.51 ** 0.23 **	60.53 ** 0.06 *	185.19** 0.27**	362.27 ** 0.34 **	140.34 ** 0.21 **
Emotional Education (EE)			-	320.35 ** 0.4 **	187.2 ** 0.27 **	193.63 ** 0.29 **	77.11 ** 0.06*	171.65 ** 0.25 **	199.1 ** 0.28 **	197.07 ** 0.3 **
Social Skills (SS)				-	344.67 ** 0.34 **	108.07 ** 0.22 **	67.7 ** 0.15 **	101.07 ** 0.21 **	105.53 ** 0.23 **	189.92 ** 0.26 **
Associationism (A)					-	201.12 ** 0.29 **	51.02 ** 0.08 **	168.25 ** 0.25 **	206.4 ** 0.31 **	238.3 ** 0.25 **
Healthcare Education (HE)						-	64.24 ** 0.11 **	255.95 ** 0.28 **	231.25 ** 0.31 **	293.99 ** 0.34 **
ICT Use (ICT)							-	59.56 ** 0.04	61.31 ** 0.01	64.59 ** 0.1 **
Environmental Education (EA)								-	520.5 ** 0.45 **	332.19 ** 00.4 **
Intercultural Education (IE)									-	414.17 ** 0.45 **
Disability (D)										-

* The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

shows that the great majority of correlations were significant, which confirms that there was a great coincidence globally between contents in the evaluation of their importance in leisure and free-time training.

Only two of the correlations obtained did not show chi-square significance. Both correlated the type of participant, one in relation to Cultural Content and the other in relation to content dedicated to Social Skills. A combined analysis together with Figure 3 revealed that in both cases the schools showed a different performance in the high values, so the result could be due to the fact that in both cases there was a difference in the assessment for that group, or it could be a defect of the great difference in the number of the sample, since in the training centres it was n = 25.

Regarding the relationship between the type of participant and the Social Skills contents, it is also noteworthy that the value of Somers’ D was significant. This result occurs when the correlation is not significant, but the result of this correlation shows a clearly defined line (as can be seen in Figure 3).

It should be noted that the relationship between ICT Use contents and Environmental and Intercultural Education contents correlated significantly. However, Somers’ D did not show any significance. This result usually occurs when the relationship between variables does not describe a trend that is marked in a straight line, but rather in a curved line or other more complex form.

To observe whether the global differences were showing or hiding significant relationships in the different groups, a more specific correlational analysis taking into account each of the transversal contents was necessary.

Table 5. Spearman’s correlations between the nine cross-cutting contents according to each assessed population.

	EE	SS	A	HE	ICT	EA	IE	Disability
Leisure and Free-Time School Management/Technical Teams (n = 25)
Culture Content (CC)	−0.086	−0.055	0.215	0.139	0.328	0.303	0.112	0.249
Emotional Education (EE)	-	0.865 **	0.396	0.667 **	0.419	0.336	0.413	0.509 **
Social Skills (SS)		-	0.375	0.616 **	0.479 *	0.230	0.346	0.494 **
Associationism (A)			-	0.250	0.267	0.293	0.293	0.416 *
Healthcare Education (HE)				-	0.102	0.477 *	0.350	0.358
ICT Use (ICT)					-	0.276	0.219	0.284
Environmental Education (EA)						-	0.805 **	0.684 **
Intercultural Education (IE)							-	0.693
Leisure and Free-Time School Teachers (n = 95)
Culture Content (CC)	0.276 **	0.343 **	0.208 *	0.231 *	0.386 **	0.274 **	0.334 **	0.283 **
Emotional Education (EE)	-	0.710 **	0.342 **	0.369 **	0.266 **	0.324 **	0.462 **	0.431 *
Social Skills (SS)		-	0.325 **	0.325 **	0.294 **	0.397 **	0.510 **	0.443 **
Associationism (A)			-	0.274 **	0.188	0.472 **	0.475 **	0.402 **
Healthcare Education (HE)				-	0.131	0.590 **	0.658 **	0.479 **
ICT Use (ICT)					-	0.314 **	0.381 **	0.427 **
Environmental Education (EA)						-	0.786 **	0.614 **
Intercultural Education (IE)							-	0.641 **
Leisure and Free-Time School Students (n = 350)
Culture Content (CC)	0.354 **	0.308 **	0.250 **	0.274 **	0.295 **	0.361 **	0.397 **	0.292 **
Emotional Education (EE)	-	0.571 **	0.327 **	0.384 **	0.240 **	0.389 **	0.376 **	0.441 **
Social Skills (SS)		-	0.459 **	0.326 **	0.228 **	0.284 **	0.325 **	0.388 **
Associationism (A)			-	0.305 **	0.244 **	0.302 **	0.340 **	0.348 **
Healthcare Education (HE)				-	0.317 **	0.470 **	0.493 **	0.487 **
ICT Use (ICT)					-	0.347 **	0.346 **	0.360 **
Environmental Education (EA)						-	0.668 **	0.486 **
Intercultural Education (IE)							-	0.593 **
Young People (n = 579)
Culture Content (CC)	0.315 **	0.129 **	0.279 **	0.282 **	−0.128 **	0.309 **	0.433 **	0.230 **
Emotional Education (EE)	-	0.303 **	0.244 **	0.244 **	0.017	0.155 **	0.171 **	0.163 **
Social Skills (SS)		-	0.343 **	0.156 **	0.142 **	0.160 **	0.179 **	0.185 **
Associationism (A)			-	0.330 **	0.036	0.235 **	0.277 **	0.172 **
Healthcare Education (HE)				-	0.087 *	0.169 **	0.193 **	0.267 **
ICT Use (ICT)					-	−0.116 **	−0.129 **	0.024
Environmental Education (EA)						-	0.330 **	0.361 **
Intercultural Education (IE)							-	0.378 **

* The correlation is significant at the level of 0.05. ** The correlation is significant at the level of 0.01.

shows the resulting correlations for each group. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used for correlational analyses since it allows for quantitative operation with ordinal variables and contributes at the same time to the validity of a study.

The results in Table 5 clearly show that there was a high correlation between the cross-cutting contents for trainers, learners, and young people; except for ICT Use in relation to Associationism and Healthcare Education for teachers, and in relation to Emotional Education and Disability for young people, all other correlations were significant. On the other hand, in the case of leisure and free-time school management/technical teams, the results show much more disparate results, probably due to the considerable reduction of the sample (n = 25), although it is striking that Culture Content did not correlate significantly with any of the other contents evaluated.

It is noteworthy to observe that the greatest disparity between groups was established in ICT Use, which may be related to the generational leap between groups or to the differences in the level of involvement in leisure and free-time training, which were the main differences between the groups involved in the study. If we compare the results of global correlations in Table 4 with the specific results in Table 5, it can be seen that the non-significance of Culture Contents in relation to participant type is better understood, since Culture Contents did not show significant correlations with any of the other transversal contents for the leisure and free-time school management/technical teams group, whereas in the rest of the groups all the correlations were significant. However, the specific correlational analysis does not help to better understand the non-significance observed in Table 4 between Participant Type and Social Skills; to find the answer, it is more advisable to look at Figure 2, where a particularly different performance can be observed in the teachers’ group in this cross-cutting content.

Finally, in order to determine whether the type of population assessed generated significant differences in the assessment of each of the nine cross-sectional contents, an inferential analysis of mean difference contrast was carried out. Bearing in mind that the results do not follow a normal distribution, we opted for a non-parametric test such as the Kruskal–Wallis test, taking Participant Type as grouping variable, as shown in

Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis test, taking Participant Type as grouping variable.

	Kruskal–Wallis H	Asymp. Sig.
Culture Contents	6541	−0.088
Emotional Education	72,391	−0.000
Social Skills	13,629	−0.003
Associationism	49,306	−0.000
Health Education	30,309	−0.000
ICT Use	54,900	−0.000
Environmental Education	30,927	−0.000
Intercultural Education	102,058	−0.000
Disability Contents	68,429	−0.000

.

Table 6 shows how Participant Type generated significant differences in eight of the nine cross-cutting contents evaluated. Only Culture Contents did not allow us to reject the null hypothesis, which determines that when evaluating Culture Contents, the type of population is not a factor that implies differences.

4. Discussion

In relation to the first objective of the study, the main professional agents involved valued leisure-time training as an enabler of social skill acquisition, education and management of emotions, and promoter of health education and intercultural education; however, there was still resistance to incorporating the use of ICT in their socio-cultural practices.

In relation to the nine cross-cutting contents and young people, we can say that they also valued the power of ICTs in their social and cultural practices.

Young people also valued the importance of Social Skills in training for leisure and free time. The ICT Use was an equally highly valued content, an aspect that is in line with the reality and technological demands in which we are immersed. On the other hand, the low scores in the contents of intercultural education and disability imply a need to reinforce these contents in order to improve coexistence in societies characterised by a diversity of cultures and abilities.

With regard to the second objective, when evaluating the significance of the relationships established between the nine cross-cutting contents, taking into account the different groups consulted, the nuances detailed below were found:

Students in leisure schools, followed by young people, valued Cultural Content (1) slightly higher than teachers and schools. This value reinforces the interest of young people in cultural aspects. It is therefore considered that the promotion of cultural contents should be continued, as they are a source of important emotional, cognitive, and, above all, social benefits.

Social Skills (2) contents were the best valued by all groups, especially by the group of teachers.

Socialisation in youth programmes plays an important role due to the fact that it generates an impact with the socialising unit and can generate an attachment to the programmes offered [28]. It develops social bonds by promoting processes and beliefs in social norms, which turn can influence behaviour. Therefore, leisure and free-time training should promote socialisation processes and reflection about the awareness of opportunities for young students.

Training to organise and design leisure activities depends on cultural processes in society, and the growth and importance of leisure time as a space for self-realisation and self-development. In addition, social and family needs must be taken into account because they determine the condition of many of the offers of leisure educational services and programmes.

Associationism (3) and citizen participation was one of the most important contents for students, and this can be an opportunity to promote community action in them, since it favours social relations, the perspective of community identity, and the idea of the common good. Several studies point to the richness of participatory and community input in young people. It may occur because they are of an age prone to joining the associative world. However, if we take into account the Disability Contents results, it should change, and in the future associationism should turn into an inclusive approach, thinking about the patterns and determinants of participation in leisure time, and barriers and leisure preferences for young people with specific needs [25].

Healthcare Education (4) contents were valued in a similar way by both teachers and students. Young people differed from this score, with the difference for the trainers being almost half a point. Following the COVID-19 situation, a holistic view of health is required, in accordance with the WHO, which contemplates physical, mental, and social well-being. Therefore, the content must be restructured to generate awareness among young people and must be treated from the prism of professionals. Addressing issues of imperative topicality among young people such as eating disorders, cyberbullying, adolescent suicide, normalised aesthetics, sexual norms and abuse, etc., can be a good idea [26].

Leisure and free-time school trainers gave higher scores to the contents of Environmental Education (5), Interculturality (6), and Disability Contents (7), which may be due to formative and professional experiences in the sociocultural field.

Regarding Emotional Education (8), in this research it was shown as content demanded by those who are closer to the intervention with young people, teachers, and students. It has been found that leisure improves mood and evokes a variety of positive emotions. Positive leisure experiences contribute to social, emotional, and mental well-being [29,30,31]. From this research, it is proposed to broaden the focus from emotions to well-being. This will allow for a holistic intervention that is more socio-educational than psychological.

Regarding the contents related to ICT Use (9), there was a dissonance between the opinions of professionals—meaning between management and technical team at schools and leisure and free-time school teachers, and even between leisure and free-time school students and the group of young people. This aspect is recurrent in the inclusion of technologies in educational settings [32] where professionals shy away from technologies from more conservative positions and are reluctant to accepting real social demands.

Currently, technologies have not only redefined the physical and social relationships of young people, but their practices, experiences, structures, and forms of leisure are also digitised, and their expectations are constantly changing. The emphasis of the contents should be analysed together with young people to cover fields of action of their interest that include the possibilities of technologies beyond the ludic and social, as well as the possibilities of social and digital gaps. It is necessary to go deeper into the knowledge of digital leisure and the time they devote to it, as well as to analyse the impacts of this on their well-being, with an emphasis on mental health [33].

Well-being is a term used as a synonym for a wide range of concepts, including self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-determination, resilience, quality of life, mood enhancement, positive mental health, life satisfaction, and worth [34]. To complement it, digital devices have an important role in the development of problematic behaviours, related to the search for strong sensations, the tendency to experience boredom, and the fluid experience that depends on their self-esteem, self-regulation, and resilience.

In general, these results provide strength to the consolidated trajectory that leisure and free-time schools have had for more than half a century in Spain, and, on the other hand, allow us to consider monitor training as a consistent and enabling training of competencies. This finding coincides with the results of other research [35,36,37], where education in leisure and free time favours and enriches the growth of the young person.

The pedagogical proposal of leisure-time schools continues to be a solid alternative offer for young people and an education in values that balances the atomisation of time and favours the permanence and contemplation of coexistence through the nine cross-cutting contents. Along this line, UNESCO’s proposal for a guide to build global citizenship [38] contributes to developing contents related to values and skills that allow people to live together peacefully with respect, equality, care, empathy, solidarity, tolerance, inclusion, communication, negotiation, conflict management and resolution, acceptance of different perspectives, and non-violence. It is also stated that non-formal education is ideal for the application of this guide, and action should be taken with initiatives promoted and led by young people.

The results show a high level of agreement among the different groups consulted, which allows us to affirm that (a) the contents of the training offered by leisure and free-time schools are in line with the demands of young people, (b) there is coherence between these contents and the expectations of the students of the monitor courses, and (c) the people involved in this training, together with young people, give value to the contents taught.

5. Conclusions

This paper defines nine cross-cutting contents in relation to the content of the formative activities of leisure and free-time schools in Spain and analyses opinions about their suitability among four groups: three groups of management, teachers, and students of leisure and free-time schools and one group of young people. Leisure and free-time formation provides a useful global framework of leisure from the perspective of human development and well-being in the search to give meaning to people’s lives.

Therefore, after delving into each of the contents, the analysis of the current context invites us to review and adjust the training of schools of leisure and free time, even above was is marked by socio-cultural tradition [39].

The uniqueness of young people must be taken into account in future content proposals, given the danger of stagnation in the design of content in exclusively formal and decontextualised aspects born of adult centrism [39]. The characteristics of young people and their personal and professional trajectories must be considered in order for them to participate in the improvement and enjoyment of the common good, and for them to be involved in sustainable development. Promoting projective participation [40] that combines reflection and innovation based on the young person’s own involvement, as well as inquiring into the contribution of this training in the transition to adulthood for young people is recommended.

In terms of practical implications, it is proposed to start from an integrative view of the 2030 Agenda focused on youth [41] and the Sustainable Development Goals in Spain [42], and to reconsider the future lines of professional action and research focused on leisure and free-time schools, specifically the training of monitors—centred on the possibilities and problems of current youth leisure, such as thinking about young people living in difficult conditions such as poverty, homelessness, abusive/addictive behaviour, and mental health, who often have limited access to opportunities. In addition, it is recommended to explore the contribution of this training to young people’s transition to adulthood [43] and include the education of emotions in leisure and free time as curricular content. It is necessary to value these trainings as an enhancer of youth empowerment [44] through participation, coexistence, and personal and social well-being.

Specifically, it is proposed to include topics related to (a) improving the inclusive and equitable quality of education so that it promotes lifelong learning and the construction of personal identity [45]; (b) involving young people to create proposals adapted to their preferences, their personality, and their circumstances that seek to promote the construction of positive interpersonal relationships and peer learning linked to personal fulfilment; (c) increasing contextualised trainings, with necessary technical and professional skills, that allow young people to access decent work as well as shared power and empowerment; (d) reflecting on social integration and act for social justice, the sustainability of the planet, and active and global citizenship [46]; (e) project training in leisure and free time with free and flexible context in a relaxed environment; and (f) from the approach of leisure pedagogy, incorporating transversal values and tools to preserve well-being.

From the understanding of humanistic or valuable leisure [47], youth interact in environments of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, as stated by Johansen [48]. Therefore, although the results of this research conclude in general terms that the formative contents have wide acceptance, the social, cultural, and economic conjuncture force us to think about a new educational approach thought of with and by the youth.

We have detected three main limitations in this research. The first is to include qualitative methodology through interviews or focus groups of the populations in the future. The second relates to the youth population; we could have ensured the representativeness of specific groups. Finally, we consider that the perceptions and predisposition to use technology has changed a lot in the world in the last year, so it would be necessary to review and deepen the research in this line.