Beyond the Trifold in Civics Presentations: The Measure of Youth Policy Arguments


  • Carlos P. Hipolito-Delgado University of Colorado Denver
  • Dane Stickney University of Colorado Denver
  • Ben Kirshner University of Colorado Boulder
  • Andrew Maul University of California Santa Barbara



youth policy arguments, student voice, action civics, youth participatory action research


Youth are increasingly engaging in civic action to address social injustices. Many adult educators are also looking for instructional resources that support youth voice as a way to promote adolescent civic development and community change. Alas, assessment tools to support youth voice and policy argumentation are lacking. Existing tools overemphasize public speaking skills and rely on dated artifacts such as cardboard trifold posters. In this article we introduce the Measure of Youth Policy Arguments (MYPA), a tool designed to aid in the development and assessment of high-quality youth policy presentations. We also describe how to use the MYPA in formative and summative contexts. Additionally, we provide initial evidence for the validity and reliability of the MYPA. Furthermore, we argue that MYPA has applications in preparing youth for policy presentation and in assessing learning outcomes associated with youth voice projects.


Akiva, T., & Petrokubi, J. (2016). Growing with youth: A lifewide and lifelong perspective on youth–adult partnership in youth programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 69, 248-258.

Andolina, M. W., & Conklin, H. G. (2018). Speaking with confidence and listening with empathy: The impact of Project Soapbox on high school students. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(3), 374-409.

Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., & Qi, Y. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2-3), 62-87.

Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2016). Innovations in civic education: Developing civic agency through action civics. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(3), 344-384.

Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. W. (2014). Missing the (student achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1084-1118.

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.

Conner, J. O., & Rosen, S. (2016). Contemporary youth activism: Advancing social justice in the United States. Praeger.

Conner, J. O., Ober, C. N., & Brown, A. S. (2016). The politics of paternalism: Adult and youth perspectives on youth voice in public policy. Teacher College Record, 118(8), 1-48.

Felsenthal, E. (2019, December). Time’s editor in chief on why Greta Thunberg is the person of the year. Time Magazine.

Flanagan, C., Syvertsen, A., & Stout, M. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents' civic engagement. CIRCLE Working Paper 55. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Gould, J., Jamieson, K. H., Levine, P., McConnell, T., Smith, D. B. (Eds.). (2011). Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106.

Kirshner, B., Zion, S., DiGiacomo, D., & Logan, G. (2020). The measure of youth policy arguments: An approach to supporting democratic participation and student voice. Democracy and Education, 28(2), Article 4.

Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025-2047.

Levinson, M. (2011). Democracy, accountability, and education. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 125-144.

Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.

Maul, A. (2017). Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 15, 51-69.

Messick, S. (1991). Psychology and methodology of response styles, in R. E. Snow and D. E. Wiley (Eds.) Improving inquiry in social science, (pp. 161-200). Erlbaum.

McHugh M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282.

NBC News. (2018, March 24). Emma Gonzalez leads emotional moment of silence during rally [Video file].

Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74.

Pope, A., Stolte, L., & Cohen, A. K. (2011). Closing the civic engagement gap: The potential of action civics. Social Education, 75(5), 262-268.

Rubin, B. C., Ayala, J., & Zaal, M. (2017). Authenticity, aims and authority: Navigating youth participatory action research in the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(2), 175-194.

Torre, M. E., & Fine, M. (2006). Researching and resisting: Democratic policy research by and for youth. In S. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond resistance: Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for policy and practice for America's youth (pp 269-285). Routledge.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(2), 1-4.

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response theory approach. Routledge Academic.

Witt, E. (2018, February 19). How the survivors of Parkland began the Never Again movement. The New Yorker.

Wu, H.-C. J., Kornbluh, M., Weiss, J., & Roddy, L. (2016). Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: The youth-adult partnership rubric. Afterschool Matters.






Research & Evaluation Studies