Advertisement

The Urban Review

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 868–892 | Cite as

Youth Participatory Action Research as an Approach to Sociopolitical Development and the New Academic Standards: Considerations for Educators

  • Mariah Kornbluh
  • Emily J. Ozer
  • Carrie D. Allen
  • Ben Kirshner
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Administrators and teachers face changes prompted by the shift to Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) offers a promising approach to supporting students in mastering new content standards, while also offering experiences that promote their sociopolitical development and civic agency. In YPAR, students work with a teacher or other adult ally to critically reflect upon the social and political forces influencing their lives, identify a pressing problem or school need, study it through systematic research, and then develop an action plan to raise awareness or change a policy. Because of its emphasis on educational relevance, critical consciousness, and social justice, YPAR is an especially promising strategy with young people who experience racism or other forms of marginalization in school. In this article we describe the YPAR cycle, make an argument for how it creates opportunities for academic learning, sociopolitical development, and youth leadership, and provide examples of what this might look like in practice. YPAR offers a curricular approach that addresses academic objectives while also supporting democratic education and the sociopolitical development of students.

Keywords

Common core National Generation Science Standards English Language Arts Sociopolitical development Youth Participatory Action Research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

All four authors would like to thank the American Education Research Association for funds that supported a research conference addressing themes in this issue. Ozer's research on youth-led participatory research described in this chapter was supported by a William T. Grant Scholars’ Award and funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ozer thanks the high school students who participated in the UC-Berkeley Peer Resources YPAR projects; San Francisco Peer Resources and SFUSD for collaboration in the research projects; and the University of California-Berkeley graduate and undergraduate research teams who assisted with the research. Kirshner would also like to thank the Spencer Foundation for funds that supported the design and implementation of Critical Civic Inquiry.

References

  1. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695–713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Boston Arts Academy. (2014). Voices from humanities 2: Perspectives on power and politics from artist-scholars at Boston Arts Academy. https://voicesfromhumanities2.wordpress.com/youth-participatory-action-research-ypar-projects/. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  3. Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. W. (2014). Missing the (student achievement) for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1084–1118. doi: 10.3102/002831214553705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahill, C. (2007). The personal is political: Developing new subjectivities through participatory action research. Gender, Place, and Culture, 14(3), 267–292. doi: 10.1080/09663690701324904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2006). A critically compassionate intellectualism for Latina/o students: Raising voices above the silencing in our schools. Multiculturalism Education, 14(2), 16–23.Google Scholar
  7. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2011). Participatory action research for high school students: Transforming policy, practice, and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 488–506. doi: 10.1177/0895904810361722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, P., Weiss, F. L., & Nicholson, H. J. (2010). Girls study Girls Inc.: Engaging girls in evaluation through participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 228–237. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9328-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528–548. doi: 10.1177/0044118X10383647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts, literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  11. Common Core State Standards. (2013). Closing the expectations gap 2013 annual report on the alignment of state K-12 policies and practice with the demands of college and careers. http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  12. Common Core State Standards. (2015). English language arts standards. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/. Retrieved 1 Jan 2015.
  13. Cornell University Cooperative Extension. (2015). Act for youth center for excellence. http://www.actforyouth.net/youth_development/evaluation/. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  14. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC).Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dworski-Riggs, D., & Langhout, R. D. (2010). Elucidating the power in empowerment and the participation in participatory action research: A story about research team and elementary school change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 215–230. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fine, M., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Re-membering exclusions: Participatory action research in public institutions. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 15–37.Google Scholar
  18. Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Burns, A., & Payne, Y. A. (2007). Youth research/participatory methods for reform. In D. Thiessen & Cook-Sather (Eds.), The international handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 805–828). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flores, K. S. (2007). Youth participatory evaluation: Strategies for engaging young people (Vol. 14). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Law, K. M., Lichty, L. F., & Aoun, C. (2010). Youth ReACT for social change: A method for youth participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 67–83. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9316-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friere, P. (1990). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Ginwright, S. A. (2010). Peace out to revolution! Activism among African American youth an argument for radical healing. Young, 18(1), 77–96. doi: 10.1177/110330880901800106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopper, K. (1999). John Berger and Erick Holtzman. Social Policy, 30(2), 13–21.Google Scholar
  24. Kirshner, B. (2009). “Power in numbers”: Youth organizing as a context for exploring civic identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 414–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00601.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirshner, B. (2015). Youth activism in an era of education inequality. New York, NY: University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kirshner, B., & Polman, J. L. (2013). Adaptation by design: A context-sensitive, dialogic approach to interventions. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 215–236.Google Scholar
  27. Kirshner, B., Pozzoboni, K., & Jones, H. (2011). Learning how to manage bias: A case study of youth participatory action research. Applied Developmental Science, 15(3), 140–155. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2011.587720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohfeldt, D., Chhun, L., Grace, S., & Langhout, R. D. (2011). Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in school-based yPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 28–45. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9376-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langhout, R. D. (2005). Acts of resistance: Student (in) visibility. Culture & Psychology, 11(2), 123–158. doi: 10.1177/1354067X05052348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langhout, R. D., Collins, C., & Ellison, E. R. (2014). Examining relational empowerment for elementary students in a yPAR Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53, 369–381. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9617-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langhout, R. D., & Mitchell, C. A. (2008). Engaging contexts: Drawing the link between student and teacher experiences of the hidden curriculum. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(6), 593–614. doi: 10.1002/casp.974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langhout, R. D., & Thomas, E. (2010). Imagining participatory action research in collaboration with children: An introduction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 60–66. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9321-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. London, J. K., Zimmerman, K., & Erbstein, N. (2003). Youth led research and evaluation: Tools for youth, organizational, and community development. New Directions for Evaluation, 2003(98), 33–45. doi: 10.1002/ev.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahoney, J. L., Harris, A. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Organized activity participation, positive youth development, and the over-scheduling hypothesis. Social Policy Report, 20(4), 3–31.Google Scholar
  35. Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool? Boulder and Tempe: Education and The Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  36. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitra, D. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 520–553. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04269620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitra, D. L. (2008). Amplifying student voice. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 20–25.Google Scholar
  39. National Governor’s Association for Best Practices. (2010). College and career-training ready standards. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-divisions/center-issues/page-edu-issues/col2-content/main-content-list/college-and-career-training-read.html. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
  40. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., Atkins, M. S., Henry, D. B., & Frazier, S. L. (2011). Channels of change: Contrasting network mechanisms in the use of interventions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3–4), 277–286. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9403-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. L. (2005). Norms and politics of equity-minded change: Researching the “zone of mediation”. In Fullman (Ed.), Fundamental change (pp. 282–305). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Orozco, R. A. (2012). Racism and power Arizona politicians’ use of the discourse of anti-Americanism against Mexican American studies. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34(1), 43–60. doi: 10.1177/0739986311430209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ozer, E. J. (2015). Youth-Led Participatory Action Research. In L. A. Jason, & Glenwick, S. D. (Eds). Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ozer, E. J., Cantor, J. P., Cruz, G. W., Fox, B., Hubbard, E., & Moret, L. (2008). The diffusion of youth-led participatory research in urban schools: The role of the prevention support system in implementation and sustainability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ozer, E. J., & Douglas, L. (2012). Assessing the key processes of youth-led participatory research: Psychometric analysis and application of an observational rating scale. Youth & Society,. doi: 10.1177/0044118x12468011.Google Scholar
  49. Ozer, E. J., & Douglas, L. (2013). The impact of participatory research on urban teens: An experimental evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 66–75. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9546-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozer, E. J., & Wright, D. (2012). Beyond school spirit: The effects of youth led participatory action research in two urban high schools. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(2), 267–283. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9546-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips, E. N., Berg, M. J., Rodriguez, C., & Morgan, D. (2010). A case study of participatory action research in a public New England middle school: Empowerment, constraints and challenges. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 179–194. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9336-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Bourdillon, M., Robson, E., Munthali, A., Abane, A., & Mashiri, M. (2010). Children as research collaborators: Issues and reflections from a mobility study in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 215–227. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9317-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards the new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11405038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Child wellness and social inclusion: Values for action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 238–249. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9318-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Public Science Project. (2015). The public science project: Participatory action research, and design for a just world. http://publicscienceproject.org/resources/. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  57. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Romero, A., Arce, S., & Cammarota, J. (2009). A barrio in pedagogy: Identity, intellectualism, activism, and academic achievement through the evolution of critically compassionate intellectualism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 217–233. doi: 10.1080/13613320902995483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: The common core standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rubin, B., & Jones, M. (2007). Student action research: reaping the benefits for students and school leaders. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 91, 363–378.Google Scholar
  61. Silva, E., Zimmerman, K., & Erbstein, N. (2001). Youth rep step by step: An introduction to youth-led evaluation and research. Oakland, CA: Youth in Focus.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, L., Davis, K., & Bhowmik, M. (2010). Youth participatory action research groups as school counseling interventions. Professional School Counseling, 14(2), 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spillane, J. P., & Kim, C. M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning in instructional and advice information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 73–102. doi: 10.1086/667755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stanford University. (2014). John W. Gardner center for youth and their communities. http://gardnercenter.stanford.edu/. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  65. Stoudt, B. G. (2009). The role of language and discourse in the investigation of privilege: Using participatory action research to discuss theory, develop methodology, and interrupt power. The Urban Review, 41, 7–28. doi: 10.1007/s11256-008-0093-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sydlo, S. J. (2000). Participatory action research: Curriculum for empowering youth. Hartford, CN: National Teen Action Research Center.Google Scholar
  67. The Institute for Community Research. (2014). Research partnerships for healthy communities: Participatory action research training and evaluation. http://www.incommunityresearch.org/research/paresearch.htm. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  68. Thomas, N. (2007). Towards a theory of children’s participation. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 15(2), 199. doi: 10.1163/1092755607X206489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tuck, E. (2009). Re-visioning action: Participatory action research and indigenous theories of change. The Urban Review, 41(1), 47–65. doi: 10.1007/s11256-008-0094-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. University of California, Davis. (2014). Center for regional change: Putting youth on the map. http://interact.regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/youth/about.html. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  71. University of Colorado, Denver. (2014). Critical civic inquiry. http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/grant-fundsresearch-on-middle-and-high-school-issues.aspx. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  72. Van Sluys, K. (2010). Trying on and trying out: Participatory action research as a tool for literacy and identity work in middle grades classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 139–151. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9319-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Watts, R. J., & Abdul-Adil, J. K. (1998). Promoting critical consciousness in young, African-American men. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 16(1–2), 63–86. doi: 10.1300/J005v16n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watts, R., Griffith, D., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression—theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1–2), 185–194. doi: 10.1023/A:1023091024140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wernick, L. J., Woodford, M. R., & Siden, J. (2011). Youth-led participatory action research: Fostering effective youth–adult partnerships. In L. M. Harter, J. Hamel Lambert, & J. Millesen (Eds.), Case studies in community-based participatory research (pp. 165–186). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, D., & Mahiri, J. (2012). Literacy learning within community action projects for social change. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 56(2), 123–131. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.00113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yonas, M. A., Burke, J. G., Rak, K., Bennett, A., Kelly, V., & Gielen, A. C. (2009). A picture’s worth a thousand words: engaging youth in CBPR using the creative arts. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 349. doi: 10.1353/cpr.0.0090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. York, A., & Kirshner, B. (in press). How positioning shapes student engagement in action civics. In. J. Conner (Ed.), Student voice in American education policy. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook.Google Scholar
  82. Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth–adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J., & MacNeil, C. (2008). Youth–adult partnerships in decision making: Disseminating and implementing an innovative idea into established organizations and communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 262–277. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9158-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariah Kornbluh
    • 1
  • Emily J. Ozer
    • 2
  • Carrie D. Allen
    • 3
  • Ben Kirshner
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Human EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of Public HealthUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options