Student Resistance and the Curriculum: Youth Participatory Action Research as Resistance through Transformative Action

• In Event: Supporting Youth Activism in Hostile Times: Case Studies in Deepening YPAR Practices

Abstract

Objectives:
The purpose of this systematic literature review is to explore the ways that various forms of curriculum—formal, hidden, enacted, and so on—can spark forms of resistance within students in K-12 school spaces. The work further explores how student resistance, often described as avoidant and destructive, can be reclaimed as critical and transgressive. Furthermore, the research sheds light on students as resistors—challenging the dominant ideologies embedded in our schools’ curricula by enacting their voice. As such, we seek to explore how YPAR practices and other forms of student resistance can be carried out through critiques and revisions of existing curricula.

Perspective
Student resistance to the negative ways that Black lives are treated and represented within K-12 curriculum connects to the political action component of sociopolitical development (SPD) theory. SPD is at the core of this study and has roots that draw from critical consciousness (Diemere & Rapa, 2016; Freire, 2000) and has inspired other work related to youth and community activism ([Author] et al., 2022; Sheth & Salisbury, 2021; Watts & [Author], 2015), which includes transformative action (Jemal & Bussey, 2018). Critical consciousness and SPD alone are not enough to fully understand the ways that students are reacting and responding to their experiences within oppressive educational systems because having an awareness of the system does not always directly lead to action (Jemal, 2017; Watts & [Author], 2015). Transformative action refers to the student response and reaction to the treatment and representation of Black lives within the K-12 setting and helps to categorize acts of resistance to the problems that come along with the often deficit-oriented presentation of Black lives (Anderson, 2018) into destructive, avoidant, and critical. Destructive actions perpetuate the oppression; avoidant actions do not reduce or contribute to the systemic inequity but may reinforce it; critical actions are those that directly combat inequities (Jemal & Bussey, 2018).

Methods and Data Sources
We surveyed literature, reviewed pre-existing student outcome data, and analyzed existing curriculum and policies. This systematic literature review examines case studies and descriptive narratives from previous research that provide examples that demonstrate patterns of student resistance or reform. We will use the phases of transformative action to identify examples of the theory and will closely examine the literature and existing data and utilize the steps of transformative action (Jemal & Bussey, 2018) to emphasize and understand the impact that student voice, both intentional and unintentional, has on curricular decision making and implementation.

Results & Significance
While we are still engaged in reviewing the literature, as of this writing we have identified several concepts, including the patterns of student resistance and the role of critical consciousness and sociopolitical development when considering curricular changes and implementation. This research builds on transformative action theory and illuminates the effects of exclusion and minimization within school spaces. This research supports the notion that YPAR approaches can help shift student resistance from destructive and avoidant to critical and transformative.

Authors

• Jordana Simmons Berwise, Rowan University

• William A. Rozycki, Rowan University

• Crystal Hutchinson, Rowan University

• Jamar Durelle Brownlee, Rowan University

• Shelley Zion, Rowan University