Conspiring to Create Community Labs: How Program and Relationship Shaped Practices Between Youth and Educators

• In Event: 35.029 - Learning as Transformation: Examining How Youth Author New Learning Pathways/Ecologies in Science, Engineering, and Technology

Abstract

What practices emerged when youth, educators, and community partners conspired to turn their schools into working community laboratories for the summer? That was the goal of the Summer & Social Justice Program (SSJ) in a large Northern California school district. This summer bridge program for students transitioning into middle or high school was also designed to transform how youth and educators perceived what they could accomplish together.
The 6-week program served 500-700 youth annually. Small groups developed community and discipline based projects—analyzing the health of local creeks, developing community gardens, building robotics, designing youth sports camps, and creating music and mini-documentaries on topics ranging from immigration to budget cuts. During four-years of data collection, participants put the program through cycles of design-based implementation and revision.
The research was framed with a critical, sociocultural perspective. Since the program addressed discourses of power and justice, the research design prioritized understanding community-based epistemologies (Freire, 1982; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; González, et al., 2005). The program was situated at school sites, facilitated by community partners, and supported by personal networks of youth and educators. Resources were made available for youth work at many regional sites. To study these efforts—where participants transformed practices and circulated knowledge between environments—we draw on concepts of third space and sociocritical literacy (Gutiérrez, 2008).
Here, the focus is on practices supporting meaningful contributions to selected communities. Data from 13 sites includes field notes from observation of 37 project groups. A series of 3 interviews—semi-structured and artifact-based—were conducted with 19 students from 6 sites throughout Year 2. On-the-spot interviews were conducted with team leaders at each site annually, as were focus groups at 2 sites in Year 3. Finally, artifacts of youth work were collected: production materials, reflection journals, letters to community members, etc.
A distinction emerged between program-driven and relationship-driven practices. For staff, when program-driven practices were primary, attention went to logistics, general program activities (not specific to project teams), managing enrollment, and pushing toward benchmarks. Youth followed a pre-determined plan and produced evidence of completion. The style of engagement was obligatory and characterized by external validation.
By contrast, relationship-driven practices promoted interest in learning about and contributing to each other. Attention went to connecting youth with resources to pursue their ideas (typically project specific) and sharing mutual interests. Tasks were established by project teams and honored shared agreements among youth and adults. Youth and educators were more likely to say SSJ exceeded expectations. The style of interaction was responsive, open-ended, collaborative and oriented toward contribution.
Both forms of practice occurred in each site. When practices were primarily relationship-driven, youth and educators more often produced work together. Work was considered jointly produced when both youth and staff took personal pride and enjoyment from the result and when both made personal contributions to the outcome. This led to increased reports of transformative learning for both youth and educators as well as increased activation of personal networks in service of the work.

Authors

• Angela N. Booker, University of California - San Diego

• Kindra F. Montgomery-Block, University of California - Davis

• Bel Reyes, University of California - Davis