Practicing youth participatory action research for school equity: A pedagogical model

Critical pedagogy

At the heart of critical pedagogy is the desire for societal transformation (McLaren, 2015). This is operationalized by teaching students to question how resources and power are distributed in society, and empowering students to take action toward a more equitable society (Freire, 1970/2018). Critical pedagogy prioritizes social justice outcomes over traditional learning outcomes for students (Giroux, 2014). Within this pedagogical model, students are taught the skills to question hierarchies of power and practices that support the subordination of traditionally marginalized and under-represented groups—a process that helps sow the seeds of empowerment in youth who wish to transform oppressive structures within schools and throughout society (Deans, 1999; Kajner, Chovanec, Underwood, & Mian, 2013; Nouri & Sajjadi, 2014). The skills and competencies required to both identify oppression and affect change are captured by the construct of critical consciousness. When educators assist students in developing a more nuanced and complex understanding of oppressive forces, they are then likely to challenge oppressive systems, fostering the development of a more equitable society (Shin, Ezeofor, Smith, Welch, & Goodrich, 2016).

Radical healing

Stemming from the transformational roots of YPAR and critical pedagogy, Ginwright’s (2016) theory of Radical Healing complemented the goals of the YPAR seminar. Owing to structural subjugation, children living in poverty-stricken areas, Black and Brown children contending with white supremacy, children with disabilities, and gender non-binary children are more likely to experience trauma (Blake, Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Bryant-Davis, 2005; Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, & Danischewski, 2016; Rossen & Hull, 2013). A primary mitigator for the effects of trauma on the human nervous system is a secure, trusting relationship (Solomon & Siegel, 2003). Therefore, researchers hoping to facilitate YPAR with marginalized students may find value in integrating frameworks meant to support traumatized students by focusing on relationship building.

Relationships play a core role in the YPAR process, serving as an ideal prerequisite for engaging in any part of the research cycle (Mirra et al., 2016). Ginwright’s (2016) revised radical healing framework provides a helpful model for researchers interested in working closely and building trust with marginalized youth. Ginwright emphasizes the need for educators to understand that although focusing on trauma experienced by students is a priority, focusing on the structural causes of that trauma is equally important, and necessary for healing and lasting community change. As we set out to conduct this YPAR project, the overall design of the seminar remained closely tied to this supposition. Ginwright (2016) outlines five elements of radical healing which are culture, agency, relationships, meaning, and achievement. Throughout the design phase of the YPAR curriculum, we found that the radical healing framework aligns strongly with, and thus complements YPAR.

Planning and logistics

From the outset, it was very important for us to design a curriculum that would adequately suit the developmental learning parameters of students in Grade 6. Thus, we developed a partnership which allowed the first author to pair up with a middle school humanities teacher to design a YPAR curriculum appropriate for a Grade 6 classroom and then co-teach the seminar. Of the 44 Grade 6 students who participated in the seminar, six identified as students of color. The entire group represented a range of demographic backgrounds representing diversity in gender, socioeconomic status, ability, English language proficiency, and religious affiliation. Since the seminar was embedded into a humanities course, all students received course credit for their efforts throughout the semester-long course. The seminar consisted of one 90 minute session per week for each of the two classes.

There was no official correspondence to parents regarding the initiation of the YPAR project. However, early in the school year, the classroom teacher communicated to all parents her intentions to disrupt the traditional classroom experience by engaging with anti-bias curriculum throughout the school year. After considering the strong philosophical alignment between YPAR and the curriculum that students were already engaging in, it was determined that communicating to parents about the YPAR seminar prior to initiation was not immediately imperative. Throughout the semester however, the classroom teacher wrote weekly email updates to parents sharing details about the ongoing YPAR work. While her emails did not include the use of the term white supremacy, they did mention vocabulary terms such as privilege, marginalization, power, racism, and gender equality. In response, the teacher received one email from a parent who was delighted that we were doing PAR—a methodology that as a faculty member at the local university he was very familiar with. The teacher also received positive verbal feedback from parents on many occasions about students engaging in social justice-related dialogue at home. Throughout the seminar, students were often required to complete homework assignments requiring them to reflect upon whatever was transpiring in the classroom. Details regarding session topics covered and activities implemented throughout the 12-week seminar can be examined in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Course outline demonstrating integration of critical pedagogy, radical healing, and YPAR for middle school YPAR curriculum.

Week	Topic(s) and goals	Activities and exercises	Applied skills, methods, and frameworks
1	Introduction to seminar, group norms, and systemic injustice. Students will describe the purpose of YPAR, make distinctions between what is unjust and what is unfair, identify 2–3 examples of injustice in the school or community and provide a reason why each example represents injustice.	Marshmallow Tower	Radical Healing: Relationships
		Unjust versus Unfair	Critical PedagogyRadical Healing: Agency
		Field research practice	YPAR: Data Collection
2	Critical pedagogy, social group identity, intersectionality, power, and privilege.Students will practice rapport building with peers, construct list of community guidelines and examine how guidelines can help to build trust, learn and practice applying social justice vocabulary terms, and explain the relationship between class privilege and opportunity.	People Hunt	Radical Healing: Relationships
		Group norms/guidelines	Radical Healing: Relationships
		On the Plate: A Story About Privilege	Critical Pedagogy: Class privilegeRadical Healing: Agency
3	What privilege looks like; What marginalization feels like; Intro to quantitative research/preliminary survey completion.Students will examine privilege and power dynamics by participating in an experiential exercise (Take A Seat) and discover the purpose of surveys by completing one and discussing the experience.	Take a Seat	Critical Pedagogy: Class privilegeRadical Healing: Agency
		Preliminary Survey	YPAR: Data collection
		Unequal Opportunity Race	Critical Pedagogy: Racial privilege
4	Preliminary data analysis and initial observations.Students will examine privilege and power dynamics by identifying social identity categories and discussing each identities relationship with power and privilege, explore foundational concepts of data analysis by examining and discussing findings from preliminary survey and drafting initial observations about injustice found in the data.	Privileged and Marginalized Identities Chart	Critical Pedagogy: Intersectionality
		Preliminary Data Observations and Analysis	YPAR: Data analysisRadical Healing: Agency
		Selection of Research Focus	YPAR: Student VoiceRadical Healing: Agency
5	Intro to qualitative research and social justice vocabulary practice.Students will apply knowledge of social justice vocabulary by participating in social justice bingo, participate in mock focus group to share thoughts on survey findings while experiencing what qualitative data collection feels and looks like, and compare and contrast quantitative research with qualitative research.	Social Justice Vocabulary Bingo	Critical Pedagogy: Language/Terminology
		RP Circle/Focus Group Simulation	Radical Healing: Relationships; meaning; and agencyYPAR: Qualitative data
		Venn Diagram: Quant research versus qual research	YPAR: Research Methods
6	Cycle of inquiryStudents will begin the cycle of inquiry by applying the Five Whys Method to uncover structural causes of systemic injustice observed in preliminary survey data.	Five Whys Method	YPAR: Cycle of InquiryCritical Pedagogy: Questioning hierarchies of power that support the subordination of traditionally marginalized and under-represented groupsRadical Healing: Agency
7	Problem identification, guiding research question, and the shared hypothesis statement.Students will consider findings from the Five Whys analysis to draft problem definitions and then reflect upon the problem definitions to design and propose research questions that might address the problems. The collective will then work collaboratively to decide on a single research question and shared hypothesis to guide remaining YPAR efforts. Students will then make topic-specific predictions about the hypothesis.	Draft research questions and present arguments for and against each one before holding a class vote to decide on a single guiding research questionDraft hypothesis statements and predictions	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency; Meaning
8	Instrumentation design.Students will reference the survey item checklist to revise ineffective survey items presented by facilitators and then draft survey items that allow them to test their hypothesis predictions while adhering to the guidelines on the survey item checklist.	Introduce characteristics of strong survey items	YPAR: Research Methods
		Practice revising poorly worded survey items	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
		Begin drafting quantitative survey items	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
		Begin drafting qualitative survey items	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
9	Survey piloting and revision.Students will pilot and critique survey items, revise survey items by applying recommendations made by peers and adults, and draft a research information sheet.	Pilot surveys and provide feedback	YPAR: Research Method; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
		Revise survey items according to feedback	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
		Draft Research Information Sheet	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voice
10	Finalization of survey design.Students will finalize YPAR survey by participating in a final round of editing and propose and vote on a title for the survey.	Build consensus on survey title	Radical Healing: Achievement
		Final review and evaluation of finalized YPAR survey	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
11	Data collection.Students will invite all students at the school to complete the survey. Completed surveys will be submitted to graduate assistants responsible for quantitative data entry and transcription of qualitative data.	Data collection	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Agency
12	Data analysis, findings, and poster creation.Students will analyze quantitative data by making observations and inferences; analyze qualitative data by coding transcripts and identifying themes; and create poster presentations detailing the purpose of the research, analysis methods, findings, and implications of the study.	Quantitative data analysis	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voice
		Qualitative data analysis	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voice
		Poster completion and presentations	YPAR: Research Methods; Student voiceRadical Healing: Achievement; Meaning

YPAR: youth participatory action research.

The planning phases related to all aspects of this project presented various challenges. First, it is important to emphasize that this project was implemented as an exploratory initiative conducted outside of the formal learning structures of the school. Accordingly, although the classroom teacher was not required to take on additional teaching hours, she was required to teach her regularly scheduled classes four days a week while providing crucial support to the YPAR seminar on Thursdays. This meant that after the initiation of the seminar, the time that the teacher was able to dedicate to refining lesson content became very limited. As a result, we often found ourselves having no choice but to schedule impromptu meetings during the precious early morning minutes before the start of the school day and during lunch breaks in order to make important adjustments to our lessons—adjustments often informed by observations and outcomes from previous sessions. Perhaps it was due to the unforeseen need for such an iterative reflexive planning process and our lack of available structured meeting time that we ended up having to make significant scheduling adjustments in order to meaningfully conclude the project before the end of the school year.

Radical healing applied

Throughout the semester we were able to integrate four of Ginwright’s (2016) five elements of radical healing. These elements are relationships, achievement, agency, and meaning. We focused more heavily on Ginwright’s call for relationship building practices in the first few weeks of the seminar by implementing team building activities such as icebreakers and challenges that prompted students to learn more deeply about their own social identities and personalities as well as that of their peers and adult facilitators. When first introducing these types of team-building activities, we were met with some resistance from a few students of color who seemed apprehensive about showing vulnerability in front of the researcher who at this point was still seen as a newcomer to the classroom. However, after the researcher, who identifies as a man of color, modeled vulnerability by sharing personal experiences with oppression, these students gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of full participation. Refer to Table 1 for activities that were informed Ginwright’s model.

We applied the achievement element by taking time to celebrate the completion of each major phase of the project such as when surveys were finalized and the moment when we

marked the conclusion of data collection. Additionally, since YPAR involves interdisciplinary learning, students were able to gain and build upon a range of valuable academic skills including critical thinking, data analysis, meaning making, and public speaking, all skills that we hope will increase their ability to achieve educational success.

Raising critical consciousness in the classroom

Although most of the group activities that were facilitated in the seminar were driven by elements of the revised radical healing framework, the bulk of the learning not directly connected with research methods was designed to raise students’ critical consciousness. The lessons regarding critical consciousness were aligned with key aspects of teaching critical pedagogy outlined by Kajner et al. (2013) which include disrupting power, co-constructing knowledge, encouraging praxis through classwork, reflecting on the social world, and becoming conscious of power dynamics. Throughout the seminar, we were often able to simultaneously address various aspects of critical pedagogy. For example, one of the first tasks we set out to accomplish was to teach students the language they would need to navigate and discuss critical theory and apply a critical lens to their data analysis. The theory instantiated (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2016) vocabulary list we developed included terms such as power, privilege, marginalized, oppression, bias, socialization, systemic, injustice, social identity, equity, inequality, discrimination, prejudice, awareness, and intersectionality. These terms were taught through a series of engaging vocabulary learning activities and formative assessments.

While going over examples of how such concepts manifest in society, students were encouraged to share any experiences with concepts such as marginalization or privilege. During these discussions, we would take time to demonstrate how dominant student perspectives or majoritarian narratives (Yosso, 2006), such as those of the White students, were often perceived as more acceptable. We would then model the practice of creating space for marginalized perspectives, such as those of the female or Muslim students, to be heard. By practicing intentionality in honoring all perspectives, students were better able to learn from the experiences of marginalized youth and apply newly gained awareness to co-construct knowledge.

We also utilized various exercises to teach students about social justice. One exercise, Unfair versus Unjust required students to listen to statements read aloud and then decide whether each statement described a scenario that was unfair or unjust. During this activity it became clear to us that students were struggling with the idea that laws can be unjust. As a result, we implemented an educational dialogue (Cammarota, Berta-Avila, Ayala, Rivera, & Rodriguez, 2016) on the topic in order to provide further opportunities for students to understand this concept. A separate activity, Take a Seat, can be described as a variation of Musical Chairs. While the simulation was borrowed from Pollack and Fusoni (2005), we adapted it to be more explicit about experiencing inequitable social class dynamics. For example, two students were given the privilege of standing aside where they could enjoy a growing collection of chairs while the rest of the class struggled to compete over diminishing resources (chairs removed from the circle at the end of each round).

We intentionally decided to cover socialclass inequality (as opposed to racial inequality) during the beginning of the critical consciousness learning phase. Our reasoning was that by starting with a more common manifestation of systemic oppression, students would more comfortably be able to initiate their examination of the pervasive and harmful nature of systemic inequality. By using a more relatable topic to expand our students’ understanding of privilege and oppression, we were able to minimize the risk of marginalized students being unintentionally harmed during more complex discussions by students possessing underdeveloped critical consciousness.

Aside from using various vocabulary comprehension assessments, attempts to evaluate student understanding of critical consciousness concepts were undertaken by assigning discussion questions. These assignments prompted students to reflect upon classroom content while demonstrating competency in using accurate language to discuss issues related to social justice and inequity. For example, when asked, “How does someone’s social identity impact how much power they have in society?”, two students provided the following responses:

Some examples of social identity are the amount of money someone has or the color of their skin. These identity factors can totally change how much power someone has in a community. For example, if you are a healthy, White, catholic/Cristian, middle-aged man, you will probably be treated better and given more power than a Black, Muslim, female, elderly, homeless, unemployed immigrant. This is because unjustly, people may assume that the immigrant is untrustworthy, dirty, job stealing, and worthless. None of this is true of course, but one of the many, many problems in society is that privileged people feel threatened by and despise people who are different. This seems odd to me because everyone is juristically(sic) different. Power is given to majority and often taken away from the marginalized. (Personal communication, April 8, 2018)

On vocabulary assessments students consistently scored at an average of 80%. However, judging from participation levels during educational dialogues as well as responses to writing prompts, it was clear to us that not all students were expressing the same level of passion for understanding and undoing systemic injustice. On the other hand, we were able to observe that although both YPAR classes included students who represented the entire range of the engagement spectrum, no part of the spectrum was delineated by homogenous characteristics.

Cycle of inquiry

After students worked on building critical consciousness and their ability to trust and collaborate with other members of the collective, we transitioned into the research methods phase. We began by introducing students to findings from a preliminary survey that was designed by adult facilitators and completed by all Grade 6 students at the school. The purpose of the survey was to provide YPAR students with baseline data to guide their inquiry during the research design process. Students were asked to use the preliminary data to make initial observations about systemic injustice within their school. The observations made using preliminary data were then used to initiate the next phase of YPAR which involved engaging with what Mirra et al. (2016) refer to as the cycle of inquiry. The cycle of inquiry is the process of developing the complex research questions that will guide student work throughout the research phases of the seminar and it involves a cyclical process of movement between personal experience and outside knowledge in order to reach a final guiding research question (Mirra et al., 2016).

The data from the preliminary surveys were also useful as a teaching tool for practicing quantitative data analysis. More directly, these data served as impetus for discussions that allowed students to draw connections between student experiences in the school and what they had learned about critical theory and social justice. During class discussions around data analysis, students would often apply this awareness to debate the validity of participant responses and how to best interpret them. In one exchange, female students questioned results showing most female students responding in the affirmative that all genders are treated equally in the school. The female student researchers brought up examples from physical education class to show that their personal experiences did not align with the data. During the debate, male students began to express agreement with the data which prompted several female students to point out that gender privilege may lead to males having a lack of awareness about the injustices faced by female students. Once all initial observations were documented, students were provided with the opportunity to select what observed issue they were most interested in researching. The options provided to students were race, gender, ability, student well-being, and culture. A list of initial observations made by students can be viewed in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Initial observations from preliminary survey data and related problem definitions.

Initial observation	Problem definition
Most people with physical disabilities are not treated equal.	Students with disabilities are not included in activities because others don’t think that they will be able to do it.
About half of the Black students who filled out the survey do not feel that all students are treated equal.	Teachers and students are not doing enough to stop racism.
About half of the Black students who filled out the survey do not feel that all students are treated equal.	Black students are feeling discriminated against because of teachers who are unaware of their white privilege.
About half of the Black students who filled out the survey do not feel that all students are treated equal.	People don’t realize they are being racist because it is not a required curriculum and the school board is not pushing for it.
Some students may be unaware of gender discrimination.	We don’t talk about gender discrimination because teachers don’t teach us about it.
Some students may be unaware of gender discrimination.	Teachers aren’t being supportive enough when there is gender discrimination.
Some students may be unaware of gender discrimination.	Students at school are not aware of their gender privilege because teachers are not teaching them about it.
Students at our school say that students are the ones who are treating others unfairly.	Students at school are treated unfairly because teachers aren’t doing enough to prevent bullying or making sure students are okay.

Problem identification

For the next step in the cycle of inquiry, we decided to have students reflect upon and analyze initial observations to form problem definitions. Given the importance of the problem definition phase when engaging in systemic interventions (Midgley, 2000)—and the developmental realities of pre-adolescent youth—instead of utilizing dialogical pedagogy (Cammarota et al., 2016) to identify root causes of complex issues, we decided to implement an alternative method that has proven useful for YPAR practitioners working with young adolescents. The Five Whys Method (Kohfeldt & Langhout, 2012), which prompts students to engage in an iterative process of inquiry to uncover structural circumstances that lie at the root of complex problems, provided a structured approach for our students to analyze structural injustice issues. Although we found that this tool was very helpful to students as they toiled to understand the hierarchies of power that harm marginalized students, we still encountered the need to provide consistent guidance and support as they explored deeper ways to understand the problems observed in the preliminary data. Eventually, students were prompted to apply what they learned from their Five Whys analysis to form problem definitions which were reviewed by adult facilitators for proper grammar and spelling. During this activity we partnered with students to ensure that their problem definitions could be as accurately aligned with their initial observations and identified structural causes as possible.

Problem definitions were then used as a basis to form the guiding research question: Is our school a place where all students feel welcome and safe? This guiding research question was developed in partnership with the students through a process of negotiation and consensus building. The research question was then used to draft a shared hypothesis statement: Our school is not focusing enough on efforts to make sure all students feel welcome and included. Each student group was then able to adapt the hypothesis to their specific topic area by drafting a testable prediction that would inform the drafting of survey items. For example, the students researching racial discrimination predicted, “Students of color at our school are more likely to feel affected by issues related to structural/systemic inequality/injustice within our school,” whereas students researching gender discrimination predicted, “Female students and trans students are more likely to feel affected by issues related to structural/systemic inequality/injustice within our school.” Each groups’ prediction became the center piece of their respective instrumentation design efforts.

Instrumentation design and data collection

When it came time to decide upon what instrumentation would be best for exploring the hypothesis, the adult facilitators presented students with options such as surveys, photo-voice, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews. However, we shared with students our concern that because of time restrictions, we should select a common instrument such as a survey so that we could more easily streamline our design and data collection efforts. Also, students added that designing and using a survey instrument would be more comfortable for them because many have had experience with completing surveys in the past. Lastly, we believed that using a more concrete data collection method would better allow us to build in the necessary supports that students would need. Eventually, the collective agreed that a mixed-methods survey would yield the most valuable data for exploring the hypothesis because it can include both qualitative and quantitative data collection items.

The drafting of items for the data collection instrument was one of the most challenging segments of the YPAR seminar. Requiring significant scaffolding, the process was spread out into multiple lessons that addressed the following questions: (a) What are the different types of survey items available and what format(s) would be most appropriate to answer our guiding research question?, (b) How to form appropriate/unbiased survey items?, and (c) How to construct survey items that would yield the best data for testing our hypothesis? To complete this part of the seminar we developed several teaching tools and methods such as item drafting guides, checklists, practice sheets for differentiating and drafting different kinds of questions, and peer-reviewing guides.

Early in this phase it became clear that we had misjudged our students’ ability to independently draft the kinds of items that would be needed for the survey. For example, one group tasked with forming survey items designed to learn whether students feel welcome in the school ended up drafting questions related to why students were feeling unwelcome. In another example, students tasked with forming survey items, designed to collect data related to why students were feeling unwelcome, ended up drafting items that were more related to student demographics. As YPAR practitioners, we felt challenged by the dilemma of figuring out how much support we could provide the middle schoolers while still honoring the PAR principles of knowledge co-construction and elevating student voice. In the end we decided that our best hope would be to further develop methods focusing on building student ability to generate survey items that were specific, clearly written, and aligned with hypotheses.

Perhaps the most useful teaching tool that resulted from our impromptu planning sessions came in the form of a five-item checklist that students referenced to draft survey items. The five criteria on the checklist for quantitative questions were as follows: item is clearly linked to hypothesis statement or research question, item asks only one question, item is not an open-ended question, item includes multiple choice options for respondents to answer, language is easily understood by middle schoolers. The four criteria on the checklist for qualitative items were as follows: item clearly links to hypothesis statement, item is an open-ended question, item asks students about what should be done about the issue, language is easily understood by middle schoolers. Although many of the items students drafted using the checklist required revisions, the checklist proved to be an effective tool for drafting, peer-reviewing, and finalizing the culminating YPAR survey used to gather school-wide data for testing the shared hypothesis.

The survey items were combined into a single six-page, 48-item survey. The quantitative items utilized a five-point Likert-scale format asking respondents to select an answer ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and included statements such as, “I am treated equal no matter what my race is in school.” The qualitative items took the form of open-ended questions such as, “How can we be more supportive when racial discrimination happens at our school?”. Owing to the strong relationship cultivated between the YPAR facilitators and school leaders, student researchers received significant logistical support from school administrators throughout the data collection process. Within a week, approximately 260 middle school students had completed and submitted surveys. Graduate student assistants entered the data into a software analysis platform which allowed us to create graphic data displays for YPAR students to conduct quantitative data analysis. The graduate assistants also drafted transcripts of all the written responses provided in the surveys for YPAR students to conduct qualitative analysis.

Data analysis

The data analysis phase was implemented throughout a five-day intensive sub-unit intended to fast-track the data analysis process—a measure that was deemed necessary because of the fast approaching end of the school year. During these five days, each of the two classes of student researchers worked on further developing research analysis skills and analyzing the gathered data for 1 hour and 30 minutes each day. While student researchers had practiced analyzing quantitative data in previous sessions, they had not yet been introduced to coding of qualitative data. Therefore, we dedicated much of the first two days of this final week’s class time to teaching students how to code qualitative data and identify emerging themes.

Student researchers navigated the data analysis phases by considering the following questions: (a) How do we identify the best data for the research question?, (b) Do the data support the hypothesis or not and what evidence do we have?, (c) What did we learn from the data?, (d) What codes and code definitions did we use to analyze our qualitative data?, (e) What codes were used most frequently?, (f) What themes emerged from the qualitative data?, (g) What evidence can we provide to support the existence of the themes?, and (h) What are the implications of our combined findings? Each group of student researchers was assigned the task of creating a research poster that provided answers to these questions. These final posters might serve as valuable sources of information for raising the necessary levels of awareness and interest to galvanize stakeholders into taking actions that address the potentially arduous findings of the YPAR study.

Like the instrumentation design phase, the qualitative analysis phase presented us with a significant degree of unforeseen adversity. Borrowing from Creswell and Poth (2018) we drew from widely accepted academic research analysis methods to develop a scaffolded approach involving descriptive coding of transcribed survey data and grouping codes to identify emerging themes. However, despite our 30 minutes of modeling and practice during our first attempt at implementing the coding activity, we were again faced with the realization that students were inadequately prepared to complete the task independently. The only students who were able to correctly complete a meaningful level of coding were those who were fortunate enough to have nearly constant adult support throughout the process. When reviewing the work submitted by students, we found that they struggled with many steps including matching similar quotes, creating and defining codes, identifying emerging themes, and grouping similar codes under corresponding themes.

Subsequently, we decided to spend more time modeling and practicing coding and theme identification. We also developed supporting documents such as a Code & Theme Organizer which students used to list codes, draft their definitions, list the number of quotes belonging to each code, and list three potential themes that their codes could be grouped under. Another supporting document that students found very useful for the task of problematizing (Cammarota et al., 2016) their themes was an Emerging Themes Organizer which helped students draft statements that for each theme included a description and two or three compelling quotes that students coded for the theme.

Although a key component of YPAR invites students to develop and present action plans to address their research findings, our limited time during the semester did not afford the opportunity to engage with this particular work. Alternatively, our intention became to provide students and adult partners who can continue YPAR work in the following school year with research findings that would inform and bolster their advocacy efforts around school equity. The following section discusses what we found to be the most enduring pedagogical lessons that emerged throughout the planning and implementation of the YPAR seminar.

School district support

As previously mentioned, the YPAR seminar resulted from a multi-year CBPR partnership developed between university researchers and school district leaders to address inequity within the school system and was articulated within an extensive MOU. This context provided us with significant district support for research projects and other kinds of interventions that emerged from initial strategic planning meetings by decision makers representing both parties. Consequently, this YPAR project was woven into a Grade 6 curriculum, allowing for the students to experience the project as a natural component of the original Grade 6 learning agenda.

Commitment to the YPAR project was evidenced by additional personnel assigned by the school principal to support the project. During most sessions at least three adults were present in the classroom and involved with assisting and facilitating the seminar. While the classroom teacher and the lead researcher were constantly present throughout the seminar, a paraprofessional teacher’s assistant was often present as well. Lastly, an undergraduate pre-service teacher was present for about half of the sessions. Therefore, in these classrooms of approximately 22 students, for at least a half of the YPAR sessions, each group of five to six students enjoyed almost-constant support from at least one adult. We observed that since much of YPAR requires students to engage in complex and sometimes abstract critical thinking, adult support is often needed to keep students from becoming overwhelmed.

An additional example of the district’s commitment to this project was the way in which the school was able to accommodate the need for students to receive compensation for their efforts in the YPAR seminar. Since the seminar was conducted as part of a Grade 6 humanities course, all students received a letter grade and academic credit for their work. We found this to be a valuable strategy as it provided the motivation for students to remain engaged with the day-to-day work. This practice also aligns with principles of YPAR which indicate the importance of valuing the time and effort of community participants who contribute to the research process (Rodríguez & Brown, 2009).

Also, a key component of the MOU articulated that the school district would own any instruments developed within the project, would have the final say on research procedures, and would have sole proprietorship of the data. This meant that practices of research ethics—obtaining informed consent, protecting the identities of participants, securing the data, etc.—would be grounded in the school districts’ internal guidelines and research policies, and not a formal university IRB protocol. While all of the decisions regarding research ethics were made in consultation with the university researchers, and the university leadership would be made well aware of the partnership—indeed one of the authors sits on the university IRB committee—given that the school system is the proprietor of both the methodology and the data, IRB approval was not necessary.

Co-teaching

Aside from being intentional about forming positive working relationships with school leaders, we emphasize the importance of cultivating strong working relationships with relevant school-based educators. In the case of this YPAR project, we were matched with a Grade 6 humanities teacher (the fourth author) who took on a crucial support role throughout the planning and implementation phases of the seminar. As a highly regarded and socially conscious educator who has attempted—yet struggled—with the task of integrating critical pedagogy into her curriculum, the teacher expressed great interest and passion at the prospect of partnering with researchers for this endeavor.

Each lesson was first developed by the researchers and then passed on to the classroom teacher so that it may be aligned with pedagogical methods consistent with Grade 6 curriculum. Weekly lessons were led by the researcher as the classroom teacher observed and regularly interjected to check for understanding, offer visual aids, and emphasize important concepts. The co-taught sessions informed the subsequent classes that were led by the classroom teacher on those days that the researcher was not in the classroom. Thus, the pair were able to effectively plan and implement comprehensive lessons that allowed students to explore, practice, and demonstrate their learning of complex topics related to critical pedagogy and research methods. This model also offered authenticity as university resources such as familiarity with research methodology and data analysis software programs made research skills and data sources more accessible to students.

Flattening the hierarchy

Although the logistical aspects of implementing YPAR were largely dependent upon positive relationships between researchers and local school district personnel, strong relationships between researchers and students are also essential. Youth voice should be the driving force of YPAR (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Mirra et al., 2016; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). The influence students had over this research process was integral to maintaining the theoretical consistency of the work. In other words, students forced us to walk the YPAR talk. This dynamic was evident during the problem identification phase when a female Black student expressed disappointment about the guiding research question. The student argued that the research question should focus specifically on racial injustice within the school and that rather than utilizing an all-inclusive consensus building process for designing the guiding research question, the decision should be made exclusively by students. This student’s willingness to challenge the adults about this concern demonstrated ownership of the YPAR process. The student expressed these concerns because she understood that within the YPAR structure, student voice is elevated. As a result, adult facilitators became aware of the need for further diligence in ensuring consensus when discussing major milestones of the YPAR process such as the finalization of guiding research questions. The student was eventually satisfied when she learned that she would be able to adapt her hypothesis predictions to focus specifically on racial injustice. However, examples such as these reminded us about the importance of stepping out of the way to allow for student voice to drive the YPAR project.