Three Community Participatory Action Research Practices to Engage and Support Youth Researchers

Critical participatory action research (cPAR) is grounded in the belief that those served by research should participate in all aspects of the research process. cPAR can also be applied to education research: Strengthening teachers’ and students’ capacity to engage in the research process helps ensure that educational policies and practices better serve those who are not benefiting from current practices.

The Adapted Measure of Math Engagement (AM-ME) project used cPAR to develop a contextually relevant measure of math engagement that centers the lived experiences of Black and Latino middle and high school students. Central to this project’s design was the AM-ME Research Group, composed of eight professional researchers, five math teachers, and six students. The AM-ME Research Group challenged current conceptualizations of math engagement through data collection and interpretation that students co-designed and co-led, creating a more holistic view that better aligns with Black and Latino student’ experiences.

This project utilized three key cPAR practices to create an engaging, supportive, learning-focused environment for our Research Group. We share them here in hopes that you can replicate or adapt these practices to your own work.

1. Create safe spaces for authentic sharing.

Early in the project, the AM-ME Research Group brainstormed group norms that subsequently grounded every meeting and held members accountable. One frequently discussed norm among the Research Group was, “Create a safe space for everyone to equally share their thoughts, ideas, and feelings.” In practice, this meant inviting all voices into the conversation, taking contributions seriously, and empowering participants to share without fear of dismissal or judgement. To fulfill this norm, professional researchers made frequent adjustments throughout the project, including adding students to the group, always having small group activities before asking members to share and engage in a large group discussion, and varying the makeup of small groups to give students time with other students and teachers with whom they were comfortable.

At the end of the project, students consistently described the Research Group as welcoming, supportive, and affirming. One remarked, “The environment was welcoming and made me feel like my voice and thoughts mattered.” Teachers echoed students’ sentiments, describing the group as more affirming than traditional professional development. One teacher reflected, “All our meetings made me feel great, as opposed to other professional development that kinda made people feel dumb.” Another emphasized the value of hearing student perspectives directly, describing it as “a really rare opportunity” that deepened their understanding of how students engage in math.

2. Allow time for all group members to build relational trust.

Another practice that supported our researchers was to create time for building relational trust—opportunities for group members to get to know one another and develop comfort, familiarity, and mutual respect. This was especially important given the group’s mix of students, teachers, and professional researchers.

Research Group meetings incorporated a variety of small, intentional practices to build relational trust among the group and between professional researchers and Research Group members. We provided food at every meeting and began with team-building activities that ranged from fun games like Telestration to activities designed to help everyone get to know each other. After the first school year, we began to notice which Research Group members were building relationships with each other and tried to put them together in small groups. We also recognized that the group valued social connection, so we allowed time for informal catch-ups, especially at the beginning of the school year and after winter break.

Students highlighted these practices as important for fostering a sense of belonging. One noted, “It was fun to learn about where other people are coming from. Some of us have been through the same scenarios, so it’s important to hear other people’s stories.” Teachers echoed this, noting that such practices reinforced the importance of building trust and rapport as a foundation for meaningful collaboration.

3. Value participants’ lived experience to strengthen your work.

One of the project’s core principles was to treat students and teachers as co-researchers whose perspectives and lived experiences directly shape the research process and development of the measure. Students played a key role in identifying confusing or misaligned survey items, leading to changes that improved clarity and relevance. For example, students revised the item “I see myself as someone who can be successful at math” to “I think I am good at math,” making the language more accessible and reflective of how they actually talk about their experiences.

Teachers also identified items that could be misinterpreted in classroom contexts, ensuring that the measure would be usable by practitioners. For example, while one question asked about students completing their math homework, some teachers noted that they rarely assign homework.

Because we valued their experiences, student and teacher co-researchers made our process more adaptive, transparent, and grounded in the realities of classrooms. Rather than follow a rigid research plan, this project became iterative and evolved, demonstrating how cPAR can enhance the relevance of measurement development.