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

Authors

  • Carlos P. Hipolito-Delgado University of Colorado Denver https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-6045
  • Dane Stickney University of Colorado Denver
  • Ben Kirshner University of Colorado Boulder
  • Andrew Maul University of California Santa Barbara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2021.1011

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2018.1435324

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1203853

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214553705

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750

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. https://time.com/person-of-the-year-2019-greta-thunberg-choice/

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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497602.pdf

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. https://www.socialstudies.org/newsandadvocacy/newreportguardianofdemocracythecivicmissionofschools

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. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol28/iss2/4

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409622

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. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

NBC News. (2018, March 24). Emma Gonzalez leads emotional moment of silence during rally [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4llJIChK2Do

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. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000300

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2017.1298967

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. https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19

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. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-survivors-of-parkland-began-the-never-again-movement

Wu, H.-C. J., Kornbluh, M., Weiss, J., & Roddy, L. (2016). Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: The youth-adult partnership rubric. Afterschool Matters. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095954

Downloads

Published

2021-09-29

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 4 (2021)

Section

Research & Evaluation Studies

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.