BackHome
Refresh: Off
Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Co-designing with Youth to Integrate Systems Thinking and Critical Science Agency in High-School Environmental Engineering

Sat, April 11, 9:45 to 11:15am PDT (9:45 to 11:15am PDT), Los Angeles Convention Center, Floor: Level Two, Room 515B

Abstract

Purposes
This study examines the affordances of engaging youth in the processes of co-designing a high school environmental engineering curriculum. The overarching goal of curriculum design was to integrate systems thinking (ST) and critical science agency (CSA) into a place-based curriculum about a local river ecosystem. We ask:

How did high school students make sense of systems thinking and critical science agency while engaging in co-design activities?
What students’ ideas and perspectives emerged and how will they inform the curriculum development?

Theoretical Framework
ST emphasizes individuals’ ability to identify patterns, causal relationships, and interdependencies within and across natural and social systems (Assaraf & Orion, 2005). CSA is defined as “combining scientific knowledge and practices with other forms of expertise to address injustices in youth lives and communities” (Author, 2024, p. 2).
We draw on participatory co-design approaches (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016) to involve youth as co-partners in the curriculum development process, integrating their understanding of ST and CSA and their perspectives on key curriculum components.

Data Sources and Modes of Inquiry
Seven high school students, three teachers, three environmental educators, and six university researchers participated in the co-design process. Throughout one school year, the co-design team met 11 times for three-hour sessions (Figure 1). We asked youth to share experiences with the river and suggested how the curriculum could reflect their backgrounds and incorporate justice-oriented actions.
[Insert Figure 1]
Primary data sources include audio recordings of co-design sessions (small group and whole group discussions), field notes, artifacts, and reflective memos. Secondary data sources include student surveys and interviews. We conducted qualitative analyses in three phases: writing annotated memos centered on ST and CSA, generating session summaries, and identifying themes across sessions (Saldaña, 2021).
Findings
The analysis has led to three main findings:
Students have demonstrated nuanced understanding of ST, including identifying relationships among ecological, engineering, and socio-political systems. ST was particularly evident in their evolving understanding of the impact of existing engineering infrastructure on the river and its surrounding communities;
Students positioned themselves as change agents throughout the co-design process by recognizing historical inequities along the river and actively proposing solutions to engineering challenges;
Four key ideas emerged that will be leveraged to finalize the curriculum: (1) youth interest in sociopolitical implications of engineering design; (2) river visits and community interviews as essential elements; (3) hands-on data collection and analysis relevant to the identified engineering challenges; (4) opportunities to speculate just futures for the river through models.
Significance
This research advances justice-oriented STEM education by demonstrating how youth can meaningfully engage in curriculum design and showing how collaborative development integrates disciplinary knowledge into a place-based engineering curriculum. The study found that participants developed complex relationships between engineering, ecological, and socio-political systems while seeing themselves as change agents. Their insights became critical curriculum components, leveraging their voice in co-design and providing practical guidance for implementing student-centered co-design approaches.

Authors