View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Participatory Action Research: Building Understanding, Dialogue, and Positive Actions in a Changing Digital Environment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Participatory Action Research: Building Understanding, Dialogue, and Positive Actions in a Changing Digital Environment
Language: English
Authors: Deborah Cockerham (ORCID 0000-0002-5357-154X)
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. 2024 72(5):2763-2791.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 29
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Technological Advancement, Educational Technology, Participatory Research, Action Research, Meta Analysis, Community Change, Dialogs (Language), Community Needs, Adults, Youth
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1
ISSN: 1042-1629
1556-6501
Abstract: The rapid growth in digital technologies continues to accelerate, bringing not only new opportunities, but also new challenges and needs to the field of education. As educational technologists design research to improve the implementation of learning technologies, they must adapt their research approaches to social and cultural contexts. In Participatory Action Research (PAR), teachers, students, or other members of the educational community participate as co-researchers who collaborate with researchers to build understanding and solve problems that are relevant to the school or community. This article describes the purpose, background, characteristics, and potential applications of PAR methods. It employs a meta-synthesis approach to investigate five adult-youth PAR collaborations that implement educational technology to meet needs in diverse educational and community settings. The main questions asked are: (1) How can PAR advance educational technology research?; and (2) In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community? Results show that PAR collaborations not only provide opportunities to gather and assess information, but can also increase dialogue that leads to meaningful understanding, insightful action, and positive change in the community and digital environments. Findings suggest that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding while moving community members to actively address the issue.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447938
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEeUVnyeRg54sclhpJW4DJ2AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH2vChgrEUsf9CKlxAIBEICBmyNCJNtIkZpRWIwBrH5gMD3Hf8xl1dUO-rngFL_f0rQ7Y31jAkHbFUIDjzYzbAtOTFsB9HsYSk3WRYOnLOGzW-b8xi9Huw4yxy0Fo4ud5mw0H6DWo5I_RUviBwvVIZ1lGe9U4bHQ5zj60emtLUOfQwVf6pi2wrksjDsbgRsEIpRch9s4VuRwfUr6bxkgiITSnsRV1sTiSwCROqwg
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180830885;etr01oct.24;2024Nov14.05:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180830885-1">Participatory action research: building understanding, dialogue, and positive actions in a changing digital environment </title> <p>The rapid growth in digital technologies continues to accelerate, bringing not only new opportunities, but also new challenges and needs to the field of education. As educational technologists design research to improve the implementation of learning technologies, they must adapt their research approaches to social and cultural contexts. In Participatory Action Research (PAR), teachers, students, or other members of the educational community participate as co-researchers who collaborate with researchers to build understanding and solve problems that are relevant to the school or community. This article describes the purpose, background, characteristics, and potential applications of PAR methods. It employs a meta-synthesis approach to investigate five adult-youth PAR collaborations that implement educational technology to meet needs in diverse educational and community settings. The main questions asked are: How can PAR advance educational technology research? In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community? Results show that PAR collaborations not only provide opportunities to gather and assess information, but can also increase dialogue that leads to meaningful understanding, insightful action, and positive change in the community and digital environments. Findings suggest that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding while moving community members to actively address the issue.</p> <p>Keywords: Participatory action research; Educational technology research; Collaborative research; Digital research methods; Educational problem solving</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In the field of educational technology, research is frequently designed to compare educational experiences and methods (Honebein & Reigeluth, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]). Such research sets out to examine the efficacy of educational technology tools and methods, often through comparing the use of new products or methods with the use of more traditional versions (Reigeluth & An, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref2">56</reflink>], cited in Honebein & Reigeluth, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]). Reeves & Lin ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref4">54</reflink>]) assert that, in addition to investigating the how effectively technology works, other types of research are also needed to support student learning and development. Noting that "the research we have is not the research we need", they advocate for educational technology research that aims to positively impact education. They suggest that collaborations in which teachers, students, administrators, and other members of the educational community take active research roles can provide answers to educational problems and enhance benefits for learning and education (Reeves & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>A participatory approach wherein teachers, students, administrators, and other educational stakeholders work together also underlies the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) of quality education (Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (un.org). In detailing their vision for why and how this goal will be attained, UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref6">69</reflink>]) asserts that efforts to provide quality education require an understanding not only of educational theories and sustainable educational practices, but also of learning experiences and needs. When educational stakeholders, who collectively constitute the educational community, collaborate in the research process, insights into diverse educational experiences, impacts, and needs can be gained. Technologies can provide innovative opportunities for gaining and sharing knowledge and expertise (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref7">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>To investigate the impact of a participatory approach on the UN SDG of quality education, Bolmsten and Manuel ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]) designed a triangulation of three participatory case studies. Participants in the various studies ranged from institutions to faculty to students, and all studies investigated educational technology implementation in maritime education and training. Findings suggest that a participatory approach to education and technology development can support sustainable education. Authors emphasize the value of the participatory process in understanding educational technology implementation and solving educational issues (Bolmsten & Manuel, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]). In like manner, Jacquez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]) found that including students as co-researchers in participatory action research (PAR) provides a perspective that not only deepens understanding, but also encourages student agency and interest in STEM careers. Students who participate in PAR learn about scientific research methods and can see direct applications for problem solving (Jacquez, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>In PAR, researchers and participants collaborate to create positive change related to community issues such as developing healthy neighborhoods, providing equitable working conditions, or addressing environmental concerns (Reason, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>]). While PAR has been highlighted as an effective strategy in educational research both with and without technology (Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]; Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref14">61</reflink>]), few studies specifically focus on educational technology research through a PAR approach. This paper uses a meta-synthesis approach to examine the effectiveness of PAR in educational technology research. The main questions asked are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How can PAR advance educational technology research?</item> <p></p> <item> In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community?</item> </ulist> <p>This study contributes to educational technology literature by presenting an innovative and flexible research method that can enrich learning opportunities and deepen community relationships in the field of educational technology. After highlighting characteristics and impacts of PAR on educational technology research and illustrating application opportunities through five case studies, the paper synthesizes findings and insights from the five studies. The paper concludes by discussing potential benefits and limitations of PAR amidst the changing frontier of educational technology research.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-3">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830885-4">Definition and applications of PAR</hd> <p>Participatory action research (PAR) brings together the diverse perspectives and experiences of researchers and community to investigate and address issues of common concern (Reason, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref15">53</reflink>]). Working together through each stage of the research process, they design the study approach and, after investigation, co-create solutions for addressing the group's needs and problems (Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]; Kidd & Kral, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref17">38</reflink>]). Following the lines of psychologist Kurt Lewin's original PAR study among factory workers (Adelman, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]; Burnes, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]), the viewpoints and lived experiences of individuals who are impacted by the issue may reveal insights that would not be noticed with traditional research methods, but are critical for understanding the problem and creating positive change (Savin-Baden & Wimpenny, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]; Tracy et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref21">68</reflink>]). In addition, PAR participants, who are also co-researchers, can develop personal and community awareness and assume leadership roles in which they not only work to transform the community, but also are empowered to take action on future issues (McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>PAR has much overlap with Design Based Research (DBR). Both approaches are adaptable in complex educational environments, even amidst day-to-day school realities such as school-supported events, curriculum needs, student absences, and behavior issues that can disrupt traditional data collection. Whereas research methods that are inflexible or cannot adapt to the realities of these factors may result in incomplete data, miscommunication, or findings that do not accurately reflect the school and culture (McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]), both PAR and DBR produce practical results that inform and improve education and the community. PAR and DBR consider these and other social factors (e.g., language, communication styles) as they situate the research in the learning environment and human well-being (Hofstetler, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]). However, DBR is distinguished from PAR as it focuses on testing an intervention, often involving multiple iterations, with a goal of building theory (Anderson & Shattuck, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]; McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref26">43</reflink>]). PAR, in contrast, emphasizes the active involvement of stakeholders in the research process in order to create and sustain positive impacts on the community (Kindon et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Goals of PAR studies typically focus on benefiting community groups, including schools and informal learning institutions that may be powerless to change inequitable or otherwise problematic situations (Cancian, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]). The community connections in these studies inform both community and society as they build understanding of the community's culture. In contrast, educational technology research methods that work to build the knowledge base by testing the capacities of technology tools may benefit other scholars more than the community (Cancian, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]). Meeting the needs of both the community and academia can be challenging, since scholars may not consider PAR methods to be valid research, and the community may question the ability of academics to meet their needs (Kindon et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, PAR appears to be well suited for educational technology research, particularly in formal educational settings. In PAR, the research focus shifts from "How well does this tool work?" to "How can we better understand and solve this problem for the benefit of the educational community?" (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]; Reeves & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref32">54</reflink>]). Heidegger ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]) suggests that a new technology must respond to a need before it is "summoned forth" for use. In like manner, educational technology research can be most beneficial when the investigation begins by examining community needs rather than by asking participants to test a specific digital tool that may or may not be useful to them (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Digital technology can support both investigation and communication in PAR. Participants may access the Internet or technology tools to build their knowledge about the issue, to test and understand new technologies, or to communicate with others. PAR may lead to Internet-based social groups that are centered on common issues. Groups and/or individuals can participate in the exchange of ideas and questions that lead to problem-solving and understanding of specific technologies (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, technology can be an intrinsic part of the problem-solving process. The integration of digital tools into everyday life is so ubiquitous that many individuals do not notice when they use technology (Glassman & Burbidge, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]). When problem solving, individuals may automatically turn to the Internet and other technological tools to learn about the topic, gather ideas, and connect with others (Glassman & Burbidge, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]). The opportunities and challenges that technology brings to education underscore the need to understand the social and cultural context of community stakeholders when the research focus is on building meaning, improving learning and performance, or creating change within an organization, school, or community.</p> <p>The personal agency that is developed as community members work through the research experience may increase individual commitment to the project, providing additional flexibility for adapting to confusing or overlapping factors such as school agendas, curriculum needs, student absences, or behavior issues (McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref38">42</reflink>]). As community stakeholders work together to address a common issue (e.g., racism, health and wellness, digital inequity, environmental concern, etc.), the mutual focus builds relationships and supports change (McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-5">Characteristics of PAR</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830885-6">Collaborative approach to research</hd> <p>In PAR, a social constructivist approach places human relationships at the center of the research experience (Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). Researchers are not separated from those who are researched, but community members, local experts, and scholars work together to generate knowledge and interpret it within the social context of the community (Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]). Awareness and understanding are co-constructed with others, and research takes place "with others and not on others" (Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]; Savin-Baden & Wimpenny, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref43">59</reflink>]). As the roles of scholars and community members overlap and academic research is melded with community inquiry, insights that might not be noticed in a traditional research experience can be revealed (Tracy, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref44">68</reflink>]). For example, traditional research data gathered through an online app that measures smartphone usage can show how many minutes an individual uses their smartphone daily, and an interview with the individual might enrich the answer by showing how the individual is using his smartphone. However, a PAR study in which a community works together to design an app could open discussions, deepen insights into the impact of the usage, and motivate positive change in smartphone use. The non-hierarchical research approach encourages open communication between all stakeholders (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]). Through the collaborative research methodology, participants learn to challenge new ideas and experiment with technology tools, becoming actively engaged in understanding and transforming practice (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-7">Goal of creating positive change</hd> <p>In designing educational technology research to implement positive change (i.e., improve education), studies must be grounded in research questions and methods that support improvement (Honebein & Reigeluth, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]). The PAR process is centered around action and critical reflection to create positive change (Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]). Freire ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]) emphasized the need for community members, rather than only leaders, to be involved in the action-reflection cycles needed for social change. Mills & Goos ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>], cited in Morales, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]) noted the need for educational research methods in which teachers, students, and other community members can more effectively address concerns and champion positive change. In working to solve problems, PAR is "transformative, not just informative" (Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]). The PAR process not only works to produce change, but can also result in a stronger knowledge gain.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-8">Reflection and action</hd> <p>Since the days of Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]), reflection and action have been considered important co-components in the learning process. From Dewey's perspective, reflection referred to the process of making meaning by engaging in collective thought about an experience. Dewey viewed group interaction as critical to the reflective process, since expressing oneself to others would require an individual to clarify his thoughts in a manner in which others could understand. The reflective process began with an action, or experience, and then moved sequentially through a description of the experience, an analysis of the experience, and the testing of theories that were generated from the experience (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]; Rodgers, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref55">57</reflink>]). Freire ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]) extended Dewey's idea of the reflection-action cycle to any community participatory methods. A reflection-action cycle is considered basic in both participatory action research and in education (Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-9">Empowerment and sustainability</hd> <p>Empowering teachers and students to take the lead in initiating positive community change is critical for sustained community growth. Although Dudgeon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]) suggest that the process of developing a collaborative action project may in itself actualize empowerment, McIntyre ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref59">42</reflink>]) notes that open discussions and collaborative reflection between all project stakeholders are needed for PAR participants to envision their roles as leaders in problem solving. Education empowers individuals to learn new skills, develop new methods of thought, or connect disparate ideas. The dynamic PAR process not only develops practical knowledge for addressing the immediate issue, but also builds confidence for targeting future needs (Savin-Baden & Wimpenny, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref60">59</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-10">PAR and educational technology</hd> <p>In his progressive theory for learning, John Dewey (1925, 1929, cited in Cunningham, [15]) espouses a participatory approach for learning. For Dewey and the time period in which he lived, participation in relevant careers and everyday activities would support education and inspire interest in learning throughout life. Over 100 years later, occupations and educational goals have changed, but the same concepts can be applied to education through technology. Technology can enhance participatory learning as it supports student agency, interest, and learning that is applicable to everyday life (Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>In like manner, PAR that is grounded in technology creates an innovative and more equitable educational research method as it provides participatory learning opportunities for all who participate (Glassman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]). The shared expertise of community members, from administrators to teachers to students (Könings & McKenney, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]), not only supports learning, but also provides insights that can lead to solutions for issues encountered within the educational community.</p> <p>This study considers a PAR approach to educational technology research as it asks the questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How can PAR advance educational technology research?</item> <p></p> <item> In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180830885-11">Methods</hd> <p>This paper uses a meta-synthesis approach to examine the use of PAR studies for educational technology research. A meta-synthesis approach works to generate a deeper understanding of a topic by examining and synthesizing evidence from two or more independent qualitative case studies (Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]; Aguirre & Bolton, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]). While each qualitative study provides an in-depth perspective into the experiences of a specific group in a specific setting, consideration of multiple studies can enhance understanding as evidence from diverse settings and applications is synthesized (Hunter et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]). Linking the different studies and interpreting their findings in light of a central research question broadens the perspective and can develop a gestalt that builds theory and can inform practice and policy (Zimmer, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref67">70</reflink>]; Aguirre & Bolton, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-12">Case study identification</hd> <p>To locate PAR case studies involving youth and technology, this study process began with a Web of Science database search based on the search string "participatory action research" AND "educational technology" AND "youth". The search produced 31 results. (See Appendix.) The abstract and methodology from all 31 manuscripts were carefully reviewed in light of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria (Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]). See Table 1 for a list of inclusion/exclusion criteria.</p> <p>Table 1 Study Criteria and Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion in the Analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Criteria</p></th><th align="left"><p>Rationale</p></th><th align="left"><p>Reasons for exclusion</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>(1) Individual case study</p></td><td align="left"><p>This criterion ensures that all included manuscripts are qualitative and are case studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Manuscripts that reference a case study only as an example to help make a point</p><p>2. Quantitative studies</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(2) Studies must focus on PAR research rather than on participatory design or action design research. As such, participants must function as co-researchers</p></td><td align="left"><p>This criterion aligns the research method by ensuring that the research has a PAR study design. Participants must have participated as co-researchers. Studies in which participants only shared ideas to help design an idea or intervention are excluded</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Studies in which participants only contribute by completing surveys or participating in focus groups</p><p>2. Systematic reviews of multiple studies</p><p>3. Participatory design studies</p><p>4. Action research that is not participatory</p><p>5. Action design research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(3) The manuscript focuses on a PAR research study rather than an educational project</p></td><td align="left"><p>To further ensure that PAR methods are implemented, studies that primarily described an educational intervention or learning project are excluded</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Educational interventions</p><p>2. Studies that focused on involving participants in creating educational projects but did not involve them in the research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(4) Technology must be an integral part of the research</p></td><td align="left"><p>To better understand the capacities of PAR in educational technology research, studies are limited to those that integrate technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>Studies that are focused on hands-on activities such as agriculture or artistic creations</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(5) Manuscripts must be published in English</p></td><td align="left"><p>The researchers must be able to read and understand the studies. PAR may be interpreted differently in other languages and cultures</p></td><td align="left"><p>Manuscripts that were originally printed in languages other than English</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(6) Manuscripts must be strong quality, following the guidelines of Eisenhardt (1989)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Study methods must be rigorous and ethical. The study must be carefully and clearly reported</p></td><td align="left"><p>Studies must have approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Studies that were excluded from the meta-synthesis did not meet the specified criteria in one or more of these ways: were not individual case studies (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>), did not implement a PAR methodology (e.g., did not involve participants as co-researchers) (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>), were focused on educational interventions or projects (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>), and/or did not integrate technology into the methods (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>). After filtering through the criteria, a total of five case studies remained in the analysis. Studies that met inclusion criteria are detailed below and summarized in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 Summary Information for Each Case Study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Case study</p></th><th align="left"><p>Case study #1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Case study #2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Case study #3</p></th><th align="left"><p>Case study #4</p></th><th align="left"><p>Case study #5</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Article and Authors</p></td><td align="left"><p>'Like, what even is a podcast?' Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies (Smith et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in east Oakland (Akom et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moving from co-design to co-research: engaging youth participation in guided qualitative inquiry (Clark et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fostering development of intergenerational relationships and preserving an indigenous culture (Freeman et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change (Besenyi et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2018</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Goals of study</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Explore connections between sports and social development among racial newcomers</p><p>2.Equalize perceived power relations implied by demographics and education</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Evaluate a community's health-related resources</p><p>2. Understand the impact of local resources upon the health, well-being, and academic success of students</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Design and develop educational technologies</p><p>2. Include middle school students as co-researchers</p><p>3. Develop "help-giving" skills among adolescents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Examine and sustain the Canadian Nak'azdli Whut'en culture, language, and history</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Investigate the usability of a city's parks</p><p>2. Determine which data collection format (paper or digital) best supports empowerment and advocacy for youth co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Context/Setting</p></td><td align="left"><p>A Toronto community center that partners with the University of Toronto</p></td><td align="left"><p>Setting: after-school/summer program at Castlemont Public High School (East Oakland, CA)</p><p>Context: Sponsored by a community-based organization, Institute for Sustainable Economic Educational and Environmental Design (ISEEED)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nak'al Bun Elementary School (Northern British Columbia)</p></td><td align="left"><p>City of Greenville Parks and Recreation Department (South Carolina)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Methods</p></td><td align="left"><p>Researchers trained co-researchers on qualitative research methods. The entire team then was trained by a professional podcast team and produced a series of podcasts concerning sports, health, and well-being</p></td><td align="left"><p>Researchers trained co-researchers on qualitative data collection methods. Co-researchers interviewed neighborhood residents and store owners, developed and gathered data through a survey, and mapped the community using both analog and digital mapping tools. Co-researchers analyzed results and conveyed their concerns and suggested actions to community leaders</p></td><td align="left"><p>Co-researchers met with researchers for two co-design sessions focused on designing a computer-supported learning environment. After researchers trained them on qualitative research procedures, participants interviewed each other, coded data, and analyzed the results</p></td><td align="left"><p>One Elder and 2–3 youth worked together as a co-research team. Elders first shared their cultural knowledge and stories with the youth. Afterwards, the youth led in implementing digital tools to learn, interpret, and understand the Nak'azdli Whut'en language and culture. Each team produced a four- to seven-minute digital story using WeVideo video editing platform, which were shared with the community</p></td><td align="left"><p>Researchers trained co-researchers to gather observational data on county parks. Afterwards, co-researchers independently completed park audits at two assigned parks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Participant age/age group and number</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four 18- to 24-year-olds</p></td><td align="left"><p>90 high school youth (split into 3 one-year cohorts)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12 eighth grade students</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 community Elders (individuals who are at least age 50 and are respected for their understanding of the oral histories)</p><p>31 upper elementary students</p></td><td align="left"><p>124 11- to 18-year-olds</p><p>(M = 13.6; SD = 1.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Participant demographics</p></td><td align="left"><p>Racialized "newcomers" (ethnically diverse youth who had immigrated to Canada within the previous three years)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low income students of color</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hispanic/Latino public middle school students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Members of the Nak'azdli Whut'en community</p></td><td align="left"><p>62% female</p><p>62% white</p><p>31% Black</p><p>19% Free or reduced lunch</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Educational technology connections with research</p></td><td align="left"><p>Podcast production</p></td><td align="left"><p>Digital mapping</p><p>Online survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>The study was embedded in a computer-supported learning environment, Ubiquitous Collaboration Support (UbiCoS), that helps students connect simultaneously through three digital and face-to-face platforms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Video production</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mobile park audit app</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outcomes/Insights</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Digital technologies in PAR created opportunities to deepen knowledge that were not be available in traditional research frameworks</p><p>2. Digital tools in PAR were seen to support the understanding of community and empower participating youth to take the lead on addressing community issues</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Youth took initial steps to address the "food desert" concerns and shared findings and ideas with community leaders</p><p>2. Community leaders launched a student-run farm, a weekly farmers market, and a 4,000-foot healthy food center</p><p>3. Researchers noted that, through involvement in PAR, youth co-researchers developed confidence, connections with caring adults and peers, a sense of responsibility, and opportunities to be part of meaningful community work</p><p>4. Digital tools supported equity and educational growth</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Researchers see the importance of avoiding adding youth participants as "staged and superficial" (Guishard & Tuck, 2013) members of a research team that only provide answers to surveys</p><p>2. Co-research encourages autonomy</p><p>3. Collaboration, different types of understanding and experience, and relationships are all highly integrated into a PAR experience</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Digital stories were shared at a community event, resulting in positive impacts for cultural understanding</p><p>2. Technology provided connections between the generations</p><p>3. The PAR process allowed Elder and youth co-researchers to learn and meaningfully contribute to their community</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Researchers noted positive development in youth co-researcher empowerment and advocacy</p><p>2. Youth involvement in PAR can prepare youth to tke action as community and societal advocates, organizers, and leaders</p><p>3. Use of innovative technology in PAR can increase self-confidence, enhance, equity, build youth-adult communication, and empower youth as community advocates</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180830885-13">Case study #1: approaching youth participatory action research through digital methodologies...</hd> <p>A primary goal of Case Study #1 was to explore connections between sports and social development among racialized newcomer youth in Toronto. Four 18- to 24-year-old ethnically diverse youth who had immigrated to Canada within the previous three years were invited to participate in a PAR study as paid co-researchers. The research team, consisting of the four co-researchers and two white graduate student researchers of similar ages, aimed to plan and implement a project investigating sports and health among Canadian newcomers. A secondary, and more challenging, goal of the project was to equalize the power relations implied by demographics and education as the researchers also worked to "flatten the hierarchy" between themselves and the participants (co-researchers).</p> <p>The team met at least bi-weekly during the first three months of the process. Researchers trained co-researchers on qualitative research methods, and together they began developing ideas for a project that would increase awareness of newcomer youth mental health and resources. An unexpected opportunity to meet with a professional podcast team led to training on podcast skills, and the team eventually produced and shared a series of mental health podcasts for youth.</p> <p>Researchers kept detailed notes and records throughout the process, which involved regular meetings, interviews, and focus groups. As co-researchers produced the podcasts, they developed new digital skills and moved into leadership roles. Researchers noted that the digital experience may have helped to level the implicit power hierarchy since, like the co-researchers, they had no expertise in making podcasts. They concluded that digital technologies in PAR can create opportunities to deepen knowledge that may not be available in traditional research frameworks. In addition, digital tools in PAR were seen to support the understanding of community and empower participating youth to take the lead on addressing community issues.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-14">Case study #2: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution...</hd> <p>Case Study #2 worked to evaluate a community's health-related resources and understand their impact upon the health, well-being, and academic success of its students. In the first phase of the project, neighborhood youth used a paper-mapping tool to measure health and educational opportunities within the community. The youth co-researchers plotted locations of grocery stores, health facilities, and other relevant resources on a map, noted observations and insights, and then transferred the annotations to a digital map. To deepen understanding of food access in relation to race and location, the project expanded into a second phase.</p> <p>Phase 2, which took place over the course of three years, involved a total of 90 youth (30 in each of three yearly cohorts) using digital tools developed specifically for the project. After co-researchers were trained in qualitative data collection methods, they conducted interviews with both neighborhood residents and store owners. They initiated, developed, and gathered data through a community health survey, and entered data into both analog and digital maps.</p> <p>Findings revealed a complex network of health resource issues within the community. Validation of these concerns motivated the youth co-researchers to extend the study by "ground-truthing" the Public Health Department's labeling of the community as a "food oasis". The youth conducted street-by-street assessments of the community, physically visiting each listed retail outlet/grocery store to determine what food options were available. Of the fifty establishments that were noted as grocery stores, forty-seven turned out to be liquor stores. Other than tobacco and alcohol-related products, the main products available at these stores were chips, soda, candy, and related items with little nutritive value. Only three of the businesses were actual grocery stores.</p> <p>As they gained insights and understanding of health-related resources and needs, the youth co-researchers were empowered to take actions that could improve the health and well-being of community members. They identified areas that needed improvement, prepared a list of recommendations, shared presentations with business leaders, and worked to renew areas that were declining. The youth's actions led the community to address food needs through innovations such as a weekly farmers' market supported by the school's newly developed urban farm. Community decision-makers followed up by building a food commissary with a 44,000 square foot specialized kitchen space and a 4000 square foot healthy food education center.</p> <p>Lead researchers noted that, through involvement in PAR, the youth developed confidence, competence (both skills and understanding of resources), connections with caring adults and peers, a sense of responsibility, and opportunities to be a part of meaningful community work. Although "nothing can replace the power and ability of everyday people to transform the social and material conditions that oppress them" (Akom et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]), the integration of technology with local involvement was seen to increase clarity and equity.</p> <p>In this study, digital tools supported the development of both equitable conditions and educational growth, and the participation of youth as co-researchers disrupted the power hierarchy in the research partnership. This change allowed the research to respond to community needs through a discovery-based approach that encourages multiple hypotheses and incorporates local knowledge. The youth co-researchers in this study not only increased community awareness, but also transformed the health and social conditions of the community.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-15">Case study #3: moving from co-design to co-research (Clark et al., 2022)</hd> <p>Case Study #3 began as a project in which adolescents worked as co-designers on a computer-supported collaborative learning environment program. The program, designed to replicate a typical educational environment, incorporated various opportunities for collaboration, including not only virtual conversations on learning management systems, but also face-to-face discussions. The design project was focused on the collaborative skill of giving help to peers. Participants were students at a primarily Hispanic/Latino middle school.</p> <p>The first two 2.5-h meetings were focused on co-design. As participants worked on the design project, researchers better understood the students' abilities. They chose to expand student roles from co-designers to co-researchers and, during the next two meetings, trained students on qualitative research skills. The relationships and underlying trust that had been cultivated during co-design supported this transition. With a goal of avoiding "staged and superficial" participation in which youth participants are not allowed to contribute their ideas or participate in data collection and analysis (Guishard & Tuck, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>], cited in Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]), researchers trained the co-researchers in qualitative research methods.</p> <p>After training, the co-researchers became an integral part of the research study's decision-making and development process. The youth first developed research questions related to help-giving skills and empathy, and then interviewed each other and coded the data. Although the team was ready to develop additional research questions and expand the study, the project was disrupted by pandemic-related shutdowns and came to a sudden stop.</p> <p>Regardless, researchers noted that youth co-researchers learned the benefits of qualitative research and were able to apply the work and findings to their own lives. The process supported student knowledge and understanding, which built autonomy among the student participants (Roggero, 2014, cited in Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref77">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-16">Case study #4: fostering development of intergenerational relationships and preserving an ind...</hd> <p>For the Nak'azdli Whut'en community of Canada, the proportion of adults over age 65 has more than doubled during the past 25 years, creating cultural gaps and limiting transfer of cultural knowledge. In Case Study #4, thirteen community Elders (individuals who are at least age 50 and are respected for their understanding of the oral histories) and thirty-one upper elementary school youth worked together as co-researchers to examine and sustain the Nak'azdli Whut'en culture, language, and history.</p> <p>The youth co-researchers first investigated Nak'azdli Whut'en history as Elders shared their cultural knowledge and stories. The analysis continued as teams of one Elder plus two or three youth took the lead in implementing digital tools to interpret the information, deepening cultural knowledge and understanding for themselves and other members of the community. Each team produced a four- to seven-minute digital story using WeVideo video editing platform. From legends (e.g., The Mosquito Man) to traditional medicine knowledge to personal stories about hunting, poetry, or other skills, all digital stories were shown at a community event, and community members noted the positive impacts and benefits for cultural understanding. Some Elders shared their stories in the traditional Dakelh language, challenging youth to decipher and translate the stories. Elder and youth co-researchers not only increased their knowledge of the indigenous culture, history, and language, but also gained technology skills. In addition, intergenerational connections were built between the youth and Elders, and the Elders strengthened relationships with each other. Lead researchers note that the technology provided connections between the generations and allowed both Elder and youth co-researchers to learn and meaningfully contribute to their community.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-17">Case study #5: exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for...</hd> <p>Case Study #5 had two main goals: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) to involve youth in investigating the usability of a city's parks, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>) to determine which data collection format (paper or digital) best supported empowerment and advocacy for youth co-researchers. The study began with concerns about the high obesity rates and the related physical inactivity among youth in the community. In efforts to redesign the community environment into a more physically engaging environment, a high priority was placed on involving community members, especially youth, in evaluating the neighborhoods and developing initiatives.</p> <p>124 youth aged 11–18 served as co-researchers who examined neighborhood options for physical activity. The youth were randomly divided into three groups:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> co-researchers who gathered data using a paper version of the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT)</item> <p></p> <item> co-researchers who gathered data using a digital version of the CPAT (e-CPAT)</item> <p></p> <item> a control group, who gathered no data initially, but with a subsample who later completed both CPAT and e-CPAT samples for comparison.</item> </ulist> <p>Using the CPAT or eCPAT, each co-researcher visited two city parks and rated various aspects according to their condition and usability.</p> <p>Lead researchers found no significant difference between the youth implementation of paper (CPAT) vs. mobile technology (eCPAT) formats. Positive changes in empowerment and advocacy were comparable between the paper and digital groups, and youth format preferences were equally distributed. However, the subsample of co-researchers who implemented both paper and digital formats found the eCPAT format easier to use and enjoyed using it more than the paper format.</p> <p>Although results in the manuscript focused primarily on the data collection format, authors noted that youth involvement in PAR can aid in positive youth development and prepare youth to take action as community and societal advocates, organizers, and leaders. They promoted the use of innovative technology in PAR as a positive approach that can increase self-confidence, enhance equity, build youth-adult communication, and empower youth as advocates within the community.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-18">Data analysis</hd> <p>In a meta-synthesis, data from case studies is compared, interpreted, and analyzed in light of the synthesist's research question(s) (Jensen & Allen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref80">37</reflink>]). The data of the synthesis is comprised not of the raw data that results from the individual studies, but rather of the meanings and insights that emerge as multiple studies are considered in light of the synthesist's research framework (Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]). Data in the current study was analyzed following a six-step analytical process:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Data extraction.</emph> Each case study was read and reviewed multiple times to determine the underlying goals, methods, and insights. Basic information (participant demographics, methods, goals, context/setting, major findings) for each study is summarized in Table 2.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Content analysis.</emph> Content analysis was conducted on a case-specific level to identify patterns and recurring words/phrases that could denote primary themes within each study (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>], p. 453). Special attention was given to the findings and discussion sections. The analysis revealed comparable patterns within the studies. For example, developing confidence with the needed technology tools motivated youth co-researchers to delve deeper into learning about the community and actively addressing community issues. In all studies, technology was viewed as a key tool in youth engagement and empowerment. In addition, each study process began with building researcher/co-researcher relationships, and the development of relationships was considered to be a critical factor in the study's success. Based on these patterns, two potential themes emerged: the integral role of technology and the building of relationships within the research experience. Identification of common variables led directly to theme extraction.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Theme extraction.</emph> We developed a coding form that began with the terms "learning" and "technology" from the research questions. The form was continually updated as variables emerged from the content analyses of each study. To preserve study integrity and keep the theme extraction closely aligned with the original studies, blank rows were also included to allow for additional insights from each case (Aguirre & Bolton, 2013; Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]). Other categories included in theme extraction were related to connection, communication, leadership, relationships, and positive impacts of PAR.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Causal network maps</emph>. The process of consolidating information into a visual network can aid in understanding data, as extraneous data is removed and the focus centers on the research questions (Miles & Huberman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref84">45</reflink>]). We mapped each case in a causal network to provide deeper insights into the sequence of actions, the impact of variables upon other variables, and co-occurrences of variables (Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref85">31</reflink>]). The network maps provided additional insights into the intersection of youth PAR and technology, revealing underlying themes within each study. After completing a causal network map for each study, we began integrating the information in the individual maps into a meta-causal network map.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Meta-causal network mapping and cross-study synthesis.</emph> To investigate on a cross-study level, we compared the individual causal network maps. In examining these networks, we were able to determine relationships and differences between the case studies. We considered patterns, sequences, actions, and themes within each study, and investigated across the five network maps to identify and summarize overarching themes (Hoon, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref86">31</reflink>]; Aguirre & Bolton, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>]). As the meta-causal network emerged, it was tested with each of the studies and adjusted to depict the general pattern seen across all studies.</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the meta-causal network model, a goal of improving student learning and/or addressing a community need underscored all studies. Patterns showed that a relational foundation between researchers and co-researchers was laid at the onset of each study as adults and youth collaborated on activities that built trust and opened communication. Relationships continued to develop as the study progressed, and the connections with others supported acceptance of shared expertise. This was vital for achieving the goals of the study.</p> <p>In addition, technology helped to create equity within each study. In Case Study #1, technology training for researchers and co-researchers worked to level the perceived power hierarchy; in all other studies, the technology expertise of the youth co-researchers built confidence and moved the youth into leadership roles.</p> <p>Finally, the combination of technology and relationships deepened youth engagement and interest in building skills, learning the technology platforms, and gathering data. Youth co-researchers exercised critical thinking skills and agency as they compiled and analyzed the data and problem solved to determine potential solutions. As their understanding of community needs grew, they realized their own capacities for increasing community awareness and actively addressing the issues. Members of the community often followed the youth co-researchers' lead by taking further action towards addressing the community issues. See Fig. 1.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Building theory from meta-synthesis.</emph> This meta-synthesis suggests that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding and motivate community members to actively address the issue. Future studies can build on this meta-synthesis by integrating adult/youth collaborative research relationships and technology in PAR to improve learning or community issues.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Steps leading to youth leadership in addressing community issues</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-19">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>This meta-synthesis asked the questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How can PAR advance educational technology research?</item> <p></p> <item> In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaboration in PAR benefit learning and the community?</item> </ulist> <p>Findings related to each question are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-20">Benefits of PAR for the educational stakeholders and community</hd> <p>All five PAR case studies produced findings that informed and benefited the community, building a stronger understanding of the issues addressed. Knowledge was deepened by collaborations in which adult researchers and youth co-researchers worked together to problem solve, as suggested in the UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref88">69</reflink>]) report. Researchers initiated the projects, brought background knowledge and, in some instances, shared their expertise. Without the researchers, it is unlikely that the studies would have been conducted. Yet, as suggested by Freire ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref89">20</reflink>]), insights from the community, particularly the youth co-researchers, were critical in understanding community needs and cultures, increasing the study relevance, and developing active solutions that targeted community issues. Insights provided by middle school co-designers in Case Study #3 enhanced the collaborative learning environment platform design. Without their experience and understanding, the social and cultural needs of other Hispanic/Latino adolescents might have been overlooked. In Case Studies #2 and #5, youth insights into neighborhood stores and parks enriched understanding and supported the development of targeted solutions to community health concerns. Podcasts created by the Canadian newcomers (Case Study #1) were first showcased at a small listening party for friends and family. This event led to future opportunities for sharing so that the health information and resources were disseminated even beyond the immediate community. The adolescents in Case Study #4 asked questions that were timely and relevant as they worked with the Elders to preserve the indigenous language and culture. These findings support the work of Baldwin ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref90">7</reflink>]), who suggests that research designed to produce change is most effective when researchers and the community work together within the social context to create awareness, build knowledge, and, ultimately, impact the community. The trust and rapport that initiated the researcher/co-researcher relationships supported acceptance of the contributions of all.</p> <p>Results did not stop with informing the community. As the research teams built relationships and engaged in open discussion, individual reflection, and active output, all five studies produced transformative effects. Some of these changes were external: the impact of the podcasts upon the awareness of the community members; the unifying effects of the podcast preparation upon the research team with its perceived power hierarchy; the food revolution that was sparked through ground-truthing. In other instances, the changes were more intrinsic: the motivation of the adolescents and newcomers to invest time and energy towards the podcast projects; the resolve and commitment of the indigenous youth and Elders to support understanding of the culture; the understanding of the scientific research process gained by the co-designers. The increased interest in scientific careers as adolescents co-designed and conducted qualitative research aligned with findings that students who participate as co-researchers may build interest in the STEM professions (Jacquez et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref91">36</reflink>]). Student co-researchers who learned research methods and conducted their own scientific research may have also have acquired a deeper appreciation for the value of scientific research and developed critical thinking skills, which could counteract Rapp and Salovich's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]) concerns of scientific doubts related to misinformation and fake news. Through interweaving the reflective process throughout the project planning and implementation, the studies became "transformative, not just informative", in line with the work of Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref93">16</reflink>], 1939) and Baldwin ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]). It is important to note that all team members were involved in the PAR process, as seen in the work of Freire ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref95">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, digital technologies were seen as essential factors in implementing PAR. Whether co-researchers created podcasts, designed videos, or mapped the neighborhood, individuals involved in all case studies learned and applied new digital tools and/or techniques that increased their confidence and sense of ownership in the project. Technologies supported problem solving for the youth co-researchers in Oakland as they worked to reverse the food desert and for the Canadian newcomers as they determined how best to share mental health resources. This is in line with the findings of Glassman and Burbidge ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref96">24</reflink>]) that digital technology can support problem solving and may be an integral part of the problem-solving process in PAR studies. Furthermore, technology tools and social media provided a primary means of communication for both the adults and the youth, as Glassman ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref97">23</reflink>]) suggests.</p> <p>Technology also served as a leveling force, supporting equity in each of these case studies. All five studies involved youth in marginalized communities. Both their young ages and their socioeconomic status would typically limit their power to improve community concerns (Honebein & Reigeluth, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref98">30</reflink>]). Yet as the co-researchers investigated health opportunities in their neighborhoods, developed videos, or coded interview data, technology became a tool that not only facilitated the research, but also built equity. Thus, acquiring technology skills increased youth confidence for contributing their expertise as they actively addressed problems and conveyed concerns and potential solutions to community leaders. In this way, technology moved the co-researchers to take the lead in creating positive community change.</p> <p>Technology supported a further leveling experience in the Canadian newcomers study. In this case, none of the research team had experience in creating podcasts, so podcast experts provided training to researchers and co-researchers alike. The entire research team's simultaneous training appeared to serve as an additional mediating force in flattening the perceived social and research power hierarchies (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, participants in all studies were empowered to step into leadership roles. This was a crucial factor in furthering community growth. Each PAR example revealed additional issues or critical steps that needed to be made. As participants developed skills in collaborating with teams, podcasting, problem solving, or conveying concerns to community leaders, they acquired experience and understanding that could support them in taking the lead to address the emergent issues and empower them to take the next steps for supporting the community. This supports the findings of Savin-Baden and Wimpenny ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref100">59</reflink>]) that PAR can produce practical understanding for addressing the immediate issue and can build confidence for leading community growth in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-21">Benefits and limitations of PAR in educational technology research</hd> <p>In designing educational technology research studies, research methods must be carefully aligned with research goals (Reeves & Oh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref101">55</reflink>]). Traditional research methods, which work well for assessing technology tools, may not provide the insights or motivation needed to address relevant educational issues. Investigations that work to address increasingly complex educational challenges or create change within education must consider institutional conditions, along with the social and cultural context of the school or community. A collaborative approach such as PAR situates community members at the heart of the study, values their collective and individual expertise, and supports their leadership in addressing community issues. Basic benefits and limitations are summarized in the list below.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-22">Benefits</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research extends beyond information-gathering, creating opportunities for positive action.</item> <p></p> <item> Social and cultural dimensions are an integral part of the research experience.</item> <p></p> <item> Co-creation of knowledge and action can build community bonds and spur community members to action.</item> <p></p> <item> PAR addresses power inequalities, providing new perspectives for participants and researchers.</item> <p></p> <item> As stakeholders change their roles from research subjects to co-researchers, they are better able to interpret the data and use it to understand and address specific community issues. Researcher/community collaborative relationships are foundational to fostering dialogue, which can deepen understanding and support positive actions in the community and digital environments.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180830885-23">Limitations</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The purpose of PAR research is to understand and improve rather than to predict.</item> <p></p> <item> Sample sizes tend to be small and may not be generalizable.</item> <p></p> <item> PAR may be time-intensive.</item> </ulist> <p>This meta-synthesis involves a set of qualitative case studies that all aim to solve learning or community issues through youth engagement in PAR. Although a meta-synthesis typically involves a small number of studies, including only five qualitative case studies may risk decreasing the magnitude of interpretation. However, investigating a group of descriptive studies that use a similar method upholds the integrity of the original studies while allowing new understanding to develop. The systematic synthesis undertaken in this study allows theory to emerge from the published studies that fit the study criteria. As such, the meta-synthesis theorizes that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding while moving community members to actively address the issue.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-24">Conclusion</hd> <p>Technology has brought new opportunities and new challenges to education. As digital tools and apps are increasingly integrated into both online and face-to-face learning environments, educational technology researchers must recognize their responsibility to actively address complex, unpredictable educational problems. Participatory Action Research collaborations that are grounded in reflection, action, collaboration, and community can unite students, teachers, and other educational community members as they deepen understanding and actively create a more equitable future.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-25">Funding</hd> <p>No funding was received to assist in the preparation of this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830885-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-28">Research involving human and animals participants</hd> <p>This manuscript is a conceptual paper based on the literature. No new research was done with human participants or animals for the purposes of this paper. As such, IRB approval or consent form was not required.</p> <hd id="AN0180830885-29">Appendix</hd> <p>Web of science search results.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Title</p></th><th align="left"><p>Author/Date</p></th><th align="left"><p>Setting or type of study</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participant base</p></th><th align="left"><p>Unmet criteria</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>'Like, what even is a podcast?' Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Smith et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Community center</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four 18 to 25-year-olds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Met all criteria</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Participatory action research and its meanings: Vivencia, praxis, conscientization</p></td><td align="left"><p>Glassman & Erdem (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2014</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Historical overview of PAR with implications for beneficial practices</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This manuscript focuses on the history of PAR</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>"Why are you doing this?" Questions on purpose, structure, and outcomes in participatory action research engaging youth and teacher candidates</p></td><td align="left"><p>Galletta and Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2010</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>High school and elementary/middle public schools</p></td><td align="left"><p>Undergraduates led adolescents</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—Authors noted that the PAR experience was compromised and that students did not have the opportunity to fully participate in a PAR approach</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland</p></td><td align="left"><p>Akom et al.(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>High school</p></td><td align="left"><p>90 high school students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Met all criteria</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Participatory action research with immigrant youth in Tokyo: Possibilities and challenges of Ibasho creation project</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tokunaga, Da Silva, Fu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>University students led high school students in an after-school program. Technology was not mentioned as part of the research</p></td><td align="left"><p>University students worked with high school students</p></td><td align="left"><p>4–Technology was not integral to the research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Structured ethical reflection as a tool to recognise and address power: a participatory action research study with separated young people in France</p></td><td align="left"><p>Stapleton & Maycock (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Immigrants who, as children, had migrated to France without parents but were now over age 18</p></td><td align="left"><p>12 18–24 year-old youth immigrants</p></td><td align="left"><p>4—Technology was not integral to the research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The Electronic Community Park Audit Tool (eCPAT): Exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change</p></td><td align="left"><p>Besenyi et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2018</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Greenville park system</p></td><td align="left"><p>124 11- to 18-year-olds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Met all criteria</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Moving From co-design to co-research: Engaging youth participation in guided qualitative inquiry</p></td><td align="left"><p>Clark et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>12 eighth grade students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Met all criteria</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Media literacy education nurturing civic participation of disadvantaged youth, or not?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Römer et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Youth received weekly interventions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Researchers conducted the research. Youth ages 17–19 were educated through the intervention</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—Participants were not co-researchers</p><p>4—Technology was not an integral part of the research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Disrupting educational inequalities through youth digital activism</p></td><td align="left"><p>Stornoiuolo & Thomas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Systematic literature review</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1—This manuscript is a review of scholarly articles</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Participatory culture meets critical practice: Documentary film production in a youth internship program</p></td><td align="left"><p>Scharber et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This project was designed to educate you in a community-based learning program. The study was action research, but not PAR</p></td><td align="left"><p>Twelve youth were participants, but adults conducted the research</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—The project was designed to educate youth, but did not involve youth participants in the research process</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital rights in digital exclusion settings: The experiences of institutionalised youth in Portuguese detention centres</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brites and Castro (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Workshops were conducted for youth in detention centers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Forty participants aged 12–17</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—Workshops involved participants in educational activities, but the youth were not co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Action research exploring information communication technologies (ICT) and child protection in Thailand</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cook et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2012</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This project was described as a child-centered partnership. Children and adolescents were participants, but not co-researchers</p></td><td align="left"><p>108 youth aged 10–19</p><p>Local businesses and nonprofits</p><p>National agencies</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—Data was gathered from youth participants, but they were not co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science</p></td><td align="left"><p>King et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Systematic review of 20 published manuscripts</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This manuscript is a systematic review</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Informed digital learning through social living labs as participatory methodology: The case of food rescue townsville</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hughes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>The manuscript uses the case study as an example to illustrate the concept of social living labs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adults involved in a volunteer community organization (number not specified)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—The case study is used only as an example</p><p>2—The study did not involve PAR</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>On disruption and integration: Two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools</p></td><td align="left"><p>Aguilera & De Roock (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2019</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This article compares the texts of two books</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This manuscript was not a case study</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Two-row wampum reimagined: Understanding the hybrid digital lives of contemporary Kanien' keha:ka youth</p></td><td align="left"><p>Jacobs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This is an educational narrative detailing the digital life of one individual</p></td><td align="left"><p>One adolescent, age 13</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—The study did not involve PAR</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>On-line learning environments and participatory health education: teachers' reflections</p></td><td align="left"><p>Simvoska & Jensen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2008</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers participated in interviews examining their experiences with and opinions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—The methods are described as qualitative, but not as PAR</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Culture Circles in adolescent empowerment for the prevention of violence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Monteiro et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2015</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This action project focused on an intervention. Data was gathered from participants, but they were not included as co-researchers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Eleven adolescents aged 15–19</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—The research focused on an intervention and was described by authors as "action research" rather than as PAR</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>"We actually care and we want to make the parks better": A qualitative study of youth experiences and perceptions after conducting park audits</p></td><td align="left"><p>Gallerani et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data was gathered through focus groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fifty adolescents aged 11–15</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—Participants were not co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>A systematic literature review of K-12 environmental Citizen Science (CS) initiatives: Unveiling the CS pedagogical and participatory aspects contributing to students environmental citizenship</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hadjichambi et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Systematic review</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This is a systematic review</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The Guardian Professions Program: Developing an advanced degree mentoring program for California's foster care alumni</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sensiper & Barragan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>The manuscript describes an intervention that supported former foster youth in being accepted into graduate school</p></td><td align="left"><p>74 undergraduate students and other young adults</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—The method, Participant Action Research, was described as "akin to" PAR. Participants provided data, but did not participate as co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Stories, objects,iInterfaces: Digital technology and cultural heritage among the young</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fakin Bajec et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This study investigated digital tools that could support cultural heritage challenges. Children provided feedback on apps and websites</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children (ages and number not specified)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—The manuscript focused on evaluating digital tools</p><p>2—The study did not take a PAR approach</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Use of a digital storytelling workshop to foster development of intergenerational relationships and preserve culture with the Nak'azdli First Nation: Findings from the Nak'azdli Lha'hutit'en Project</p></td><td align="left"><p>Freeman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Elementary school</p></td><td align="left"><p>31 upper elementary school children (ages not specified)</p><p>13 elders</p></td><td align="left"><p>Met all criteria</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Community as locus for health formal and non-formal education: The significance of ecological and collaborative research for promoting health literacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pais et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2014</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This is a comparative investigation of two separate research studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Two research studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—The manuscript uses a case study only as a comparative example</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sustainability communication through bio-based experiential learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Arief et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>In this educational intervention, children attended workshops and then designed and presented projects</p></td><td align="left"><p>74 children ages 9–11</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—Children created projects, but did not participate as co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Editorial: The European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018. A Laboratory for Heritage-Based Innovation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schiacchitano (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2019</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This editorial presents an informational essay rather than a research study</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This manuscript is an informational essay</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Using the quality circle approach to empower disadvantaged youth in addressing cyberbullying: An exploration across five European countries</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hamilton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This multifaceted project primarily gathered data from participants</p></td><td align="left"><p>Phase 1: 2,637 youth aged 14–16</p><p>Phase 2: Participants created and shared projects</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—Youth contributed feedback and prepared projects, but did not participate in the research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>"Not present in our ranks": Exploring equitable representation in student voice efforts for policy change</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holquist et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This study was a qualitative secondary analysis of two previous studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adolescents participated in each study</p></td><td align="left"><p>2—Participants did not participate as co-researchers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mobile storytelling and informal education in a suburban area: A qualitative study on the potential of digital narratives for young second-generation immigrants</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ranieri and Bruni (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2013</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This intervention was described by authors as an action research study</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fifteen youth aged 11–15</p></td><td align="left"><p>3—The action research method focused on an intervention rather than on participatory research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Inconsistent condom use among Ugandan university students from a gender perspective: A cross-sectional study</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mehra et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2014</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>This research involved a survey of participants</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,954 college students</p></td><td align="left"><p>1—This was a large-scale study rather than a case study</p><p>2—No participatory methods were involved</p><p>4—Technology was only used for completing the survey</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180830885-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0180830885-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adelman C. Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research. 1993; 1; 1: 7-24. 10.1080/0965079930010102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref79" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aguilera E. On disruption and integration: two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools. Pedagogies: an International Journal. 2019; 14; 1: 78-87. 10.1080/1554480X.2019.1565668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref65" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aguirre RT, Bolton KW. Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory. Journal of Social Work. 2014; 14; 3: 279-294. 10.1177/1468017313476797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref73" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Akom A, Shah A, Nakai A, Cruz T. Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: How technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 2016; 29; 10: 1287-1307. 10.1080/09518398.2016.1201609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?. Educational Researcher. 2012; 41; 1: 16-25. 10.3102/0013189X11428813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref72" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Arief NN, Famiola M, Pratama AP, Anggahegari P, Putri ANA. Sustainability communication through bio-based experiential learning. Sustainability. 2022; 14; 9: 5204. 10.3390/su14095204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin MGray M, Midgley J, Webb S. Participatory action research. The SAGE handbook of social work. 2012; SAGE Publications Ltd.: 467-481. 10.4135/9781446247648.n31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Besenyi GM, Schooley B, Turner-McGrievy GM, Wilcox S, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Kaczynski AT. The Electronic Community Park Audit Tool (eCPAT): Exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change. Frontiers in Public Health. 2018; 6: 332. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bolmsten J, Manuel ME. Sustainable participatory processes of education technology development. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68; 5: 2705-2728. 10.1007/s11423-020-09803-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brites MJ, Castro TS. Digital rights, institutionalised youths, and contexts of inequalities. Media and Communication. 2022; 10; 4: 369-381. 10.17645/mac.v10i4.5663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnes B. Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2007; 43; 2: 213-231. 10.1177/0021886306297004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cancian FM. Conflicts between activist research and academic success: Participatory research and alternative strategies. The American Sociologist. 1993; 24; 1: 92-106. 10.1007/BF02691947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark AT, Ahmed I, Metzger S, Walker E, Wylie R. Moving from co-design to co-research: Engaging youth participation in guided qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2022; 21: 16094069221084793. 10.1177/16094069221084793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook PH, Heykoop C, Anuntavoraskul A, Vibulphol J. Action research exploring information communication technologies (ICT) and child protection in Thailand. Development in Practice. 2012; 22; 4: 574-587. 10.1080/09614524.2012.672960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham CA. Transforming schooling through technology: 21stcentury approaches to participatory learning. Education and Culture. 2009; 25; 2: 46-61. 10.1353/eac.0.0043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey J. The need for a philosophy of education (1934). Schools. 2010; 7; 2: 244-245. 10.1086/656072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dudgeon P, Scrine C, Cox A, Walker R. Facilitating empowerment and self-determination through participatory action research: Findings from the National Empowerment Project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2017; 16; 1: 1609406917699515. 10.1177/1609406917699515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fakin Bajec, J, Pogačar, M, & Straus, M. (2021). Stories, Objects, Interfaces: Digital Technology and Cultural Heritage Among the Young. An Introductory Comment,51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman S, Martin J, Nash C, Hausknecht S, Skinner K. Use of a digital storytelling workshop to foster development of intergenerational relationships and preserve culture with the Nak'azdli First Nation: Findings from the Nak'azdli Lha'hutit'en Project. Canadian Journal on Aging/la Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement. 2020; 39; 2: 284-293. 10.1017/S0714980819000588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. 2020; Bloomsbury Academic. 10.4324/9781003060635-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallerani DG, Besenyi GM, Stanis SAW, Kaczynski AT. "We actually care and we want to make the parks better": A qualitative study of youth experiences and perceptions after conducting park audits. Preventive Medicine. 2017; 95: S109-S114. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galletta A, Jones V. "Why are you doing this?" Questions on purpose, structure, and outcomes in participatory action research engaging youth and teacher candidates. Educational Studies. 2010; 46; 3: 337-357. 10.1080/00131941003782452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glassman M. The internet as a context for participatory action research. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25; 3: 1891-1911. 10.1007/s10639-019-10033-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glassman M, Burbidge J. The dialectical relationship between place and space in education: How the internet is changing our perceptions of teaching and learning. Educational Theory. 2014; 64; 1: 15-32. 10.1111/edth.12048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guishard M, Tuck E. Youth resistance research methods and ethical challenges. Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change. 2013; Routledge: 181-194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadjichambi D, Hadjichambis AC, Adamou A, Georgiou Y. A systematic literature review of K-12 environmental citizen science (CS) initiatives: Unveiling the CS pedagogical and participatory aspects contributing to students' environmental citizenship. Educational Research Review. 2023; 39: 100525. 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton J, Purdy N, Willems RA, Smith PK, Culbert C, Brighi A, Völlink T. Using the quality circle approach to empower disadvantaged youth in addressing cyberbullying: an exploration across five European countries. Pastoral Care in Education. 2020; 38; 3: 254-272. 10.1080/02643944.2020.1788127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heidegger M. The question concerning technology. Technology and Values: Essential Readings. 1954; 99: 113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holquist SE, Walls J. "Not present in our ranks": Exploring equitable representation in student voice efforts for policy change. Teachers College Record. 2021; 123; 8: 3-30. 10.1177/01614681211048658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honebein PC, Reigeluth CM. To prove or improve, that is the question: The resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69; 2: 465-496. 10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoon C. Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods. 2013; 16; 4: 522-556. 10.1177/1094428113484969</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hostetler K. What is "good" education research?. Educational Researcher. 2005; 34; 6: 16-21. 10.3102/0013189X034006016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes H, Wolf R, Foth M. Informed digital learning through social living labs as participatory methodology: The case of Food Rescue Townsville. Information and Learning Science. 2017; 118; 9/10: 518-534. 10.1108/ILS-05-2017-0041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter JE, Schmidt F, Jackson G. Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. 1982; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs S. The use of participatory action research within education–benefits to stakeholders. World Journal of Education. 2016; 6; 3: 48-55. 10.5430/wje.v6n3p48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacquez F, Vaughn L, Deters A, Wells J, Maynard K. Creating a culture of youth as co-researchers: The kickoff of a year-long stem pipeline program. Journal of STEM Outreach. 2020. 10.15695/jstem/v3i1.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen LA, Allen MN. Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research. 1996; 6; 4: 553-560. 10.1177/104973239600600407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidd SA, Kral MJ. Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2005; 52; 2: 187. 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M. Participatory action research. International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography. 2008; Elsevier: 90-95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King AC, Odunitan-Wayas FA, Chaudhury M, Rubio MA, Baiocchi M, Kolbe-Alexander Tmembers of Our Voice Global Citizen Science Research Network. Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18; 3: 892. 10.3390/ijerph18030892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Könings KD, McKenney S. Participatory design of (built) learning environments. European Journal of Education. 2017; 52; 3: 247-252. 10.1111/ejed.12232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre A. Participatory action research. 2007; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenney S, Reeves T. Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher. 2013; 42; 2: 97-100. 10.3102/0013189X12463781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehra D, Östergren PO, Ekman B, Agardh A. Inconsistent condom use among Ugandan university students from a gender perspective: A cross-sectional study. Global Health Action. 2014; 7; 1: 22942. 10.3402/gha.v7.22942</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 1994: London; Sage: 107-119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills M, Goos MPeters MA, Cowie B, Menter I. The place of research in teacher education? An analysis of the Australian teacher education ministerial advisory group report action now: Classroom ready teachers. A companion to research in teacher education. 2017; Springer: 637-650. 10.1007/978-981-10-4075-7_43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morales MPMertler CA. Participatory action research (PAR) in education. The Wiley handbook of action research in education. 2019; Wiley: 317-341. 10.1002/9781119399490.ch15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monteiro EMLM, Neto WB, de Lima LS, de Aquino JM, Gontijo DT, Pereira BO. Culture Circles in adolescent empowerment for the prevention of violence. International journal of adolescence and youth. 2015; 20; 2: 167-184. 10.1080/02673843.2014.992028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pais SC, Rodrigues M, Menezes I. Community as locus for health formal and non-formal education: The significance of ecological and collaborative research for promoting health literacy. Frontiers in Public Health. 2014; 2: 283. 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton MQ. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work. 2002; 1; 3: 261-283. 10.1177/1473325002001003636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ranieri M, Bruni I. Mobile storytelling and informal education in a suburban area: A qualitative study on the potential of digital narratives for young second-generation immigrants. Learning, Media and Technology. 2013; 38; 2: 217-235. 10.1080/17439884.2013.724073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapp DN, Salovich NA. Can't we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2018; 5; 2: 232-239. 10.1177/2372732218785193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reason P. Participation in human inquiry. 1994; Sage Publications Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves TC, Lin L. The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68; 4: 1991-2001. 10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves TC, Oh EG. The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Educational Technology Research and Development. 2017; 65; 2: 325-339. 10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reigeluth CM, An YJ. Theory building. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base. 2009; 3: 365-386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodgers C. Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record. 2002; 104; 4: 842-866. 10.1177/016146810210400402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Römer, L, Supa, M, & Hodboď, V. (2022). Media literacy education nurturing civic participation of disadvantaged youth, or not?. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savin-Baden M, Wimpenny K. Exploring and implementing participatory action research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2007; 31; 2: 331-343. 10.1080/03098260601065136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scharber C, Isaacson K, Pyscher T, Lewis C. Participatory culture meets critical practice: Documentary film production in a youth internship program. English Teaching: Practice & Critique. 2016; 15; 3: 355-374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiacchitano E. European year of cultural-heritage. A laboratory for heritage-based innovation. SCIRES-IT-Scientific Research and Information Technology. 2019; 9; 1: 1-14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sensiper S, Barragán CA. The Guardian professions program: Developing an advanced degree mentoring program for California's foster care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017; 82: 329-336. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simovska V, Jensen BB. On-line learning environments and participatory health education: Teachers' reflections. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2008; 40; 5: 651-669. 10.1080/00220270701648092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith R, Danford M, Darnell SC, Larrazabal MJL, Abdellatif M. 'Like, what even is a podcast?' Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2021; 13; 1: 128-145. 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1836515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stapleton A, Mayock P. Structured ethical reflection as a tool to recognise and address power: a participatory action research study with separated young people in France. Educational Action Research. 2023; 31; 4: 670-690. 10.1080/09650792.2021.2008463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stornaiuolo A, Thomas EE. Disrupting educational inequalities through youth digital activism. Review of Research in Education. 2017; 41; 1: 337-357. 10.3102/0091732X16687973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tokunaga T, Machado Da Silva I, Fu M. Participatory action research with immigrant youth in Tokyo: possibilities and challenges of Ibasho creation project. Annals of Anthropological Practice. 2022; 46; 1: 40-51. 10.1111/napa.12173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracy NR, Sieber T, Phillips A, Leondar-Wright B, Alatorre LM, Ali BM, Underriner J. Collaborating for change: A Participatory Action Research casebook. 2020; Rutgers University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.unesco.org/en/articles/rethinking-education-towards-global-common-good">www.unesco.org/en/articles/rethinking-education-towards-global-common-good</ulink>. UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmer L. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006; 53; 3: 311-318. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Deborah Cockerham</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Deborah Cockerham Clinical Assistant Professor in the University of North Texas Learning Technologies department, also serves as Director of the Learning Technologies Masters of Science Program. Through a fourdimensional research focus on emerging and immersive technologies, socioemotional learning, neurodiversity in education, and the development of higher order thinking skills, she aims to increase learning motivation, encourage cognitive growth, and enrich equitable learning opportunities. Dr. Cockerham founded and directed the Research and Learning Center at the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History and continually works to build community and school relationships with higher education. She has over twenty years of experience in teaching children and adolescents with a wide range of learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and/or autism spectrum disorders. Dr. Cockerham served as co-editor on the book Mind, Brain, and Technology and as lead editor on Reimagining Education: Studies and Stories for Effective Learning in an Evolving Digital Society.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref101"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447938
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Participatory Action Research: Building Understanding, Dialogue, and Positive Actions in a Changing Digital Environment
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deborah+Cockerham%22">Deborah Cockerham</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5357-154X">0000-0002-5357-154X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 72(5):2763-2791.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 29
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Advancement%22">Technological Advancement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participatory+Research%22">Participatory Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meta+Analysis%22">Meta Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Change%22">Community Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dialogs+%28Language%29%22">Dialogs (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Needs%22">Community Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth%22">Youth</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The rapid growth in digital technologies continues to accelerate, bringing not only new opportunities, but also new challenges and needs to the field of education. As educational technologists design research to improve the implementation of learning technologies, they must adapt their research approaches to social and cultural contexts. In Participatory Action Research (PAR), teachers, students, or other members of the educational community participate as co-researchers who collaborate with researchers to build understanding and solve problems that are relevant to the school or community. This article describes the purpose, background, characteristics, and potential applications of PAR methods. It employs a meta-synthesis approach to investigate five adult-youth PAR collaborations that implement educational technology to meet needs in diverse educational and community settings. The main questions asked are: (1) How can PAR advance educational technology research?; and (2) In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community? Results show that PAR collaborations not only provide opportunities to gather and assess information, but can also increase dialogue that leads to meaningful understanding, insightful action, and positive change in the community and digital environments. Findings suggest that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding while moving community members to actively address the issue.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447938
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447938
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 29
        StartPage: 2763
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Technological Advancement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participatory Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meta Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dialogs (Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Youth
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Participatory Action Research: Building Understanding, Dialogue, and Positive Actions in a Changing Digital Environment
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deborah Cockerham
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6501
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1