Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Res Sci Educ. 2020 Sep 25;52(2):539–551. doi: 10.1007/s11165-020-09960-8

Group Level Assessment (GLA) as a methodological tool to facilitate science education

Lisa M Vaughn 1,2, Farrah Jacquez 3, Alice Deters 4, Alicia Boards 5
PMCID: PMC8937028  NIHMSID: NIHMS1632687  PMID: 35321322

Abstract

Group Level Assessment (GLA) is a qualitative, participatory research methodology that can be used within science education, specifically to meet the Science and Engineering Practices dimension of the K-12 Next Generation Science Standards. In contrast to traditional qualitative research methods, GLA is a concrete methodological tool intended for large groups. GLA follows a 7-step process in which diverse stakeholders work together to generate, analyze and prioritize ideas that lead to action planning. Emphasizing personal relevance, shared decision making, systematic inquiry, and collaboration in the design and process, GLA is best positioned conceptually and theoretically within community-based participatory research and inquiry-based learning approaches. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how GLA can be utilized as an innovative methodology to incorporate students’ lived experiences in science education. We describe how to conduct GLA and provide a case example of GLA in action conducted as part of a larger science education program with students and teachers in STEM.

Keywords: Group level assessment, STEM, youth, inquiry-based learning, community-based participatory research, science education

Group Level Assessment (GLA) is a qualitative, participatory research methodology that can be used within science education, specifically to meet the Science and Engineering Practices dimension of the K-12 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). GLA is collaborative, engaging, and directly relevant to youths’ personal lived experiences (author et al., 2014; 2019; authors et al., 2011). GLA is intended for large groups to generate and evaluate information (author et al., 2014; 2019). Unlike more traditional qualitative research methods in which participants provide data and researchers analyze it, GLA participants collaborate to generate, analyze and prioritize ideas to lead them into action planning. GLA is often used as an alternative to focus groups and other qualitative research methods because it can capture the perspectives and priorities of a wide range of stakeholders in one session. The action-based process of GLA provides each participant the opportunity to have an equal voice in data generation, evaluation, and action planning. In addition to providing data, the GLA process also builds community through interactive small group conversations that allow individuals share and hear diverse perspectives (author et al., 2019). GLA deliverables include participant-driven action plans to encourage participants to remain actively involved in the change process after the GLA ends (author et al., 2014; 2019).

Within science education, the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices dimension emphasizes research and investigation in science as a way for students to apply scientific knowledge and concepts in order to improve science learning. Instead of teaching science as a series of facts presented without context, NGSS calls for students to learn science content and skills by engaging with it in real-life scenarios grounded in inquiry (Bell, Tzou, Bricker, & Baines, 2012; Schweingruber, Quinn, Keller, & Pearson, 2013). The NGSS standards are consistent with guidelines from reformers and policy-makers encouraging science educators to avoid a “one science fits all approach” (Seiler, 2001) and instead make science curriculum more relevant to students’ lived experiences and society more broadly (Stuckey, Hofstein, Mamlok-Naaman, & Eilks, 2013).

NGSS standards push educators to put students at the center of learning because “for many youth, learning science is as much about becoming a legitimate participant in the science learning community as it is about learning the content of science” (Barton et al., 2008, p. 72). An early report from California, one of the first states to implement NGSS standards, found that many districts reported that their teachers were not prepared to teach NGSS standards (Gao, Adan, Lopes, & Lee, 2018). The educational training most science educators receive does not include pedagogical approaches to science centered on students’ own individual experiences. However, there are tools and methodologies that can be utilized to better prepare science educators to implement the NGSS standards in a way that innovatively and effectively creates spaces and curriculum that can tie science more closely to students’ lives. GLA is a concrete methodological tool that can help educators meet the Scientific Practice dimension of NGSS while at the same time engaging students in using science to solve real-life problems.

The purpose of this manuscript is twofold. First, we position GLA conceptually and theoretically as a methodological tool that can be used within science education. Second, we describe the nuts and bolts of conducting GLA with youth in a science education context. To highlight the process of GLA, we provide a case example of GLA in action conducted as part of a larger science education program with students and teachers in STEM. The article concludes with implications for the use of GLA in science education.

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks for GLA

As a participatory methodology that directly engages relevant stakeholders throughout the process, GLA is best conceptualized in research and pedagogy within the frameworks of community-based participatory research (research) and inquiry-based learning (pedagogy).

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR).

CBPR is a participatory approach to research that emphasizes shared decision making and collaboration among stakeholders as equal partners in each step of the research process (Israel, Eng, & Schulz, 2013; Wallerstein, Duran, Oetzel & Minkler, 2017). By definition, CBPR engages youth in the role of scientist, with respected contextual expertise and perspective that improves research quality and increases potential social change (authors, 2013). In this way CBPR democratizes knowledge production so that lived experience expertise is equally valuable to academic ways of knowing. Theoretically, CBPR runs counter to traditional positivist scientific traditions and instead draws from critical social theory, which defines knowledge as historically and socially constructed (Habermas, 1971; Wallerstein & Duran, 2017).

Because the process of CBPR mirrors the scientific process, there are reflections of the NGSS Scientific Practices dimension at every step. Evidence has documented the effectiveness of the CBPR process in empowering youth through shared decision making and increased control over the community issues that affect their lives (Kohfeldt, Chhun, Grace, & Langhout, 2011; Suleiman, Soleimanpour, & London, 2006). For example, in Jardine and James’ (2012) project on community tobacco use, youth developed skills in research investigation, leadership, and critical thinking as a result of engaging in research based in a participatory framework. Through shared decision making, the youth felt a sense of ownership over the research process, which impacted their future success and their sustained interest in community change (Jardine & James, 2012). In Ferrera’s (2015) work with immigrant youth, participation and engagement of youth in the research process led to the development of youth leadership skills, knowledge of and preparedness for college and health care field work, community capacity-building, and health outreach through the youths’ social networks in their communities.

Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL).

Whereas CBPR informs the theoretical underpinnings of GLA as a research tool, IBL provides similar insight onto the GLA as a pedagogical practice. IBL is a student-centered, active approach to learning that encourages students to pursue knowledge by solving a problem of their choosing (Buchanan, Harlan, Bruce, & Edwards, 2016; Bell, 2010 ). Similar frameworks include Project-Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning and Game-Based Learning. IBL encourages shared responsibility for learning between students and teachers with students’ questions, ideas, and interests guiding the pursuit of knowledge and problem-solving (Bell et al., 2010; Slough & Milam, 2013). IBL was born from social constructivism theory, which posits that knowledge is co-constructed through meaningful social engagement (Vygotsky, 1987) and learning is optimized when students are able to actively explore material and have agency in the investigative process (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003).

Within science education, IBL has been widely accepted as an ideal approach for conducting investigations using the scientific method, active learning of students, and an investigation-focused pedagogical approach used by teachers (Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). IBL offers students more autonomy than other approaches to learning and this autonomy leads to increased student engagement and self-confidence (Bell, 2010; Núñez & León, 2015; Small, 2009). The values that underlie IBL include the belief that education “should support the growth of healthy, engaged individuals able to contribute to their communities as satisfied, productive students, citizens and lifelong learners” (Buchanan, Harlan, Bruce, & Edwards, 2016, p. 25). One study compared a school using IBL to a school using more traditional approaches of math learning and found that not only was the math knowledge of students at the IBL school as good or better than the traditional school, positive attitudes about math were also higher (Boaler, 1998).

Common Factors of CBPR and IBL.

The theoretical frameworks of CBPR and IBL are naturally aligned and include four common factors of student/teacher engagement: 1) personal relevance; 2) shared decision making; 3) systematic inquiry; and 4) collaboration (Figure 1). The four common factors of CBPR and IBL are embodied within the GLA process and the results gained from engaging with participants to find solutions makes GLA a concrete, timely, and relevant methodological tool that can be applied within science education. Personal relevance signifies that students and teachers are developing research questions that are meaningful to them and applicable to their lives—in other words, GLA provides a platform for science to ask “the right questions” based on student context (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013, p. 10). Within CBPR and IBL, the concept of shared decision making (working together to make decisions that balance scientific learning with student interests and priorities) implies that students are empowered, autonomous agents alongside science educators and academic researchers. The very process and outcomes of GLA support shared decision making among students, educators, and other relevant stakeholders. Systematic inquiry, at the foundation of both CBPR and IBL, is the structured, intentional process of students and teachers asking questions and solving problems which can easily occur within the seven steps of the GLA process. Both CBPR and IBL have at their core a foundation of engagement and participation (genuine and equitable collaboration) among all relevant stakeholders versus more commonly accepted top-down delivery methods in education. Indeed, GLA is a participatory and collaborative methodology from generation of ideas to the final action step. Many science educators might value the four elements common in both CBPR and IBL frameworks but struggle with how to put them into practice in the classroom. GLA provides a concrete tool to actualize the goals of personal relevance, shared decision making, systematic inquiry and collaboration.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Common factors of GLA within IBL and CBPR

GROUP LEVEL ASSESSMENT (GLA) METHODOLOGY

GLA consists of seven structured steps (see Figure 2) which involve participants in the generation, analysis, and prioritization of information from their own perspectives (author, 2109). Although components of GLA may resemble certain aspects of design thinking processes and other large group interventions (e.g., community forum, world café, future search conference, appreciative inquiry summit), GLA can be distinguished as a qualitative and participatory research methodology with distinct and specific steps for data collection, analysis, interpretation, prioritization, and action. GLA has been used across a wide range of disciplines and with different stakeholder groups as a tool to directly engage and work with stakeholders versus on them to identify salient needs and priorities (author et al., 2012; 2015; 2018; 2019a; 2019b; Choe et al., 2019; Guy, 2017; Guy & Boards, 2019; Raider-Roth et al., 2019; Schondelmeyer et al., 2019; Stevens, 2019; authors et al., 2011). The first usage of GLA was as a diagnostic tool within the field of organization development (author et al., 1998). With further adaptations that broaden the scope to research, GLA has since been used in medicine (author et al., 2012, 2018; Choe et al., 2019; Schondelmeyer et al., 2019), social service (author et al., 2015), education (Guy, 2017; Guy & Boards, 2019; Raider-Roth et al., 2019; Stevens, 2019; authors et al., 2011), and public health (author et al., 2019). GLA works particularly well with youth because it gives them the opportunity to be in the driver’s seat actively identifying what matters most to them while engaging in a collaborative process (authors et al., 2011; 2017). Additionally, GLA includes all stakeholders’ voices, even those who tend to be quieter or are usually silenced, making it an effective tool for exploring and sharing diverse perspectives (authors et al., 2011; author et al., 2019a; 2019b). Unlike many other methodological tools, GLA is a versatile, flexible methodology that can be modified and adapted for use based on the specific group and program characteristics (author, 2019).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Steps of Group Level Assessment

GLA CASE EXAMPLE

Youth Built Change (YBC) is a STEM pipeline program funded by the National Institutes of Health that engages high school students through CBPR and IBL approaches to research. YBC works with high school juniors as co-researchers conducting research on drug abuse and addiction in rural Appalachia and an urban Midwestern city with the goal of highlighting the relevance of STEM skills to one’s own personal life and community. The foundation of the YBC program is that working with students in research that is relevant to their lives and sharing in the decision-making process with youth as co-researchers will lead to a deeper and more personally meaningful understanding of science. By solving real-world problems that matter to them, applying fundamental skills in research methodologies and techniques, learning foundational knowledge in science and mathematics, and developing positive attitudes towards research, we anticipate that youth will be more likely to embrace science and STEM fields as possible careers.

Prior to beginning the YBC program each school year, the students and teachers participate in a two-day Research Kick-Off (RKO) event at the university (authors et al., in press). During the two days, students are engaged in conversations and activities that allow them to share their perspectives on drug abuse and addiction in their communities and begin to define their preferred ways of working together on research over the year-long program. In order to directly engage students in our YBC program planning, and at the same time enact the four common factors of IBL and CBPR (personal relevance, shared decision making, systemic inquiry, collaboration) during RKO, we used GLA as a tool to explore student identity, perceptions of science and research, and how best to work together in YBC.

In the first two years of the YBC program, GLA was conducted with students during the RKO event. Forty-five students participated in the GLA session in Year 1, and 45 participated in Year 2. In Year 1, participants were 76% female and 24% male from a range of racial/ethnic backgrounds. In Year 2, participants were 62% female and 38% male also from a range of racial/ethnic backgrounds.

As mentioned above, GLA proceeds in seven steps (see Figure 2). In Step 1, Climate Setting, students were provided with an overview of the GLA process and a short, warm-up activity. During Step 2, Generating, the students were instructed to walk around and answer pre-written prompts displayed on 35 flip charts that hung around the room. They were provided with markers and asked to respond to each chart by either providing a unique comment and/or corroborating an existing comment by adding a check mark or star. A prompt relevant to research, science, youth identity, collaboration, future plans, current program, or community context was listed on each flip chart. Example prompts included: “In my experience, the biggest barriers to working together in a group include…;” “The most important BIG issue for kids in my school/community is…;” “In the next 2–3 years, I’m most looking forward to…;” “When I hear the word researcher I think of …;” “In my world, the thing I feel most strongly about changing is…” (see Table 1 for all 35 prompts). Next, the students were given time to walk around and read the written responses provided to the prompts (Step 3, Appreciating). Additional time was provided in Step 4, Reflecting, so individuals could digest and reflect on the information gathered. For Step 5, Understanding, the facilitator divided the group into smaller groups of five to six students. Each small group was provided with 4–5 flip charts populated in Step 2. The small groups were instructed to analyze the information on their assigned charts for salient themes/overlapping ideas. In a round-robin fashion, a representative from each small group then reported out to the entire group the themes identified. The facilitator recorded the major themes presented by each small group at the front of the room so all students could see the similarities among the themes. During Step 6, Selecting, the large group reconvened to discuss the data and prioritize the themes. The students condensed the ideas into priorities to inform the values, interactions, and day-to-day work of the year-long YBC program. In Year 1, the GLA resulted in four overarching themes/priorities related to the program and the role of science and research in their individual lives (Table 2). In Year 2, students identified three themes/priorities related to working together, what it means to conduct research, and personal challenges and then supported each one with several subthemes (Table 2). After the large group in each year prioritized themes, students engaged in a conversation regarding how these could turn into action and what they believed could be “actionable” in their school or community (Step 7, Action).

Table 1:

Group Level Assessment Prompts for RKO Event

1. If I had a superpower it would be ……
2. I feel good/bad about myself when ….(split half)
3. In my world, the thing I feel most strongly about changing is…
4. The biggest problem in our community
5. The best/worst part of science is… (split half)
6. Best way/Worst way to support youth my age (split half)
7. The most important health/social/emotional/practical issue for youth in my school/community….(quadrants)
8. When I need help, I >>>>>>>>>>>
9. When I hear the word scientist I think of…
10. Research is ………
11. The most important BIG issue for kids in my school/community is…
12. In the next 2–3 years, I’m most looking forward to >>>>>>
13. When I hear the word researcher I think of …
14. This program will be successful if…
15. We can best work together in this group by…
16. In my experience, the biggest barriers to working together in a group include
17. In my community, we need ___________ to better address mental health/substance abuse (split half)
18. I am participating in this program because ….
19. If money wasn’t an issue, we should __________in this program
20. I believe the best way to get youth involved in their communities is
21. To be a researcher myself, I need…..
22. Things we most need in our community are…
23. For our school team to be effective in this program, I believe we need to
24. I am most concerned about ____ during this project/program.
25. People are not talking about ________in my school/community
26. After high school, I hope to….
27. When I feel stressed, I …..
28. A hashtag (#) that best represents me is …..
29. Things I like/don’t like in my community…
30. The best part/worst part of my life is (Split half)
31. The best ways to learn about research and science include…
32. In general I’m most worried about…
33. When I get older, I want to…
34. Small things that I appreciate about my community include….
35. I believe that ____________ is missing from research and science.
Open in a new tab

Table 2:

GLA Themes/Subthemes Overview

Cohort Theme/Subtheme
Year 1

  • 1. Success in YBC requires diversity of ideas

  • 2. Collaborative science is based on meaningful, supportive, and genuine relationships

  • 3. Each student’s self-confidence and initiative will both sustain energy and fuel quality research

  • 4. We can use science to solve the problems of everyday life
Year 2

  • 1. Working together

    • a. being positive and accepting of others is a key ingredient to teamwork

    • b. get to know and understand yourself and that will improve your work with others

    • c. we will be more productive with encouragement and support from teachers, parents, and each other

    • d. being open-minded allows you to learn from others and expand your outlook

  • 2. What it means to conduct research

    • a. we want our research to make a difference and lead to change in our communities

    • b. there are many negative forces in our communities (crime, drugs, racism, gun violence, etc.) that we have to consider when it comes to research

    • c. research requires good social skills while working together in groups

    • d. we want to get the word out about the research we are doing

    • e. scientists need to be sensitive and able to communicate honestly in research

  • 3. Personal challenges

    • a. we all have big goals of success and future achievement but don’t always have a path to get there

    • b. family and personal issues can affect all of us

    • c. youth are dealing with peer pressure, stress, and mental health concerns
Open in a new tab

The findings from these two GLAs not only supported the common factors of CBPR and IBL among the students in the program but served as a useful tool for ensuring that our program design matches the priorities identified by our students in each year of the program. With these priorities in mind, our team was able to develop curriculum and activities that not only helped students experience the research process but also addressed the issues that each cohort of students noted as most important. These priorities were used as the foundation for students developing ground rules and expectations for each year. Additionally, the resulting themes/ priorities from the GLA were easily translated into actionable elements and iterations of the YBC program design. For example, since the first year GLA themes emphasized interpersonal relationships, we planned a number of team building, communication and active listening activities throughout the year. The emphasis on personal relevance encouraged us to use activities like digital storytelling that focused on students’ own personal experiences to develop their research questions. Findings from the second year GLA informed program decisions about the necessity for including community partnership and support to inform the social change elements of research and to make connections about additional resources available to youth in their communities. Based on findings from both GLAs, we are currently piloting a peer mentoring component for this year’s cohort so that last year’s students have an opportunity to increase their self-confidence and leadership skills. We will continue to keep the GLA student-identified priorities in mind as we move into the future years of our program.

DISCUSSION

In our STEM pipeline program focused on centering youth voice in participatory research on drug abuse and addiction, GLA was the ideal methodology to spark engagement in youth from the first touch and to set the foundation of the year-long program. In our GLAs, we asked youth to share their perspectives about the scientific process and its impact on their communities. The GLA sessions gave youth the autonomy to name their own priorities and identify their own process for engaging in team science. Allowing youth to develop their own value system at the beginning stages modeled the process we intended for the entire year-long program.

By beginning our program each year with GLA, we were able to tap into the first three principles of CBPR in a single activity (Israel et al., 2017). First, by having youth express themselves individually and then come together to synthesize and prioritize themes, we recognized the youth in the two partnering schools as a unit of identity. The final themes and action plans identified through the GLA process recognized and respected this youth community as a unique and vital partner in the research process, which has been interpreted by community stakeholders as the driving mechanism inherent in the CBPR principle “recognize community as a unit of identity” (Burke et al., 2013). Second, CBPR calls researchers to “build on strengths and resources within the community” (Israel et al., 2017). Beginning our program with GLA allowed us to identify strengths and resources that already existed in our partnering youth and in their larger communities. Because GLA prompts intentionally included positively framed items (e.g., “the best thing about my community is…”), conceptualization of themes included assets and resources. Third, CBPR aims to “facilitate collaborative, equitable partnership in all phases of the research process” (Israel et al., 2017). The CBPR orientation assumes that youth hold unique expertise that can only be leveraged when they are engaged as decision-making partners. By asking youth from the first day to not only share their perspectives on collaboration, research, and drug abuse and addiction in their communities but also to prioritize and plan for action, we were able to establish youth as co-researchers rather than learners. Although descriptions of youth as research partners is not uncommon in existing literature, our prior review revealed that research that collaborates with youth in shared decision-making is relatively rare (authors et al., 2013). Therefore, in our YBC program we have emphasized the use of methodologies like GLA that provide a structured way to engage youth as co-researchers from the very beginning. Interpersonal and team factors like group dynamics, relationships among group members, reciprocity, inclusivity, and collaborative processes have been identified as key ingredients to the success of CBPR in attaining successful outcomes (Jagosh et al., 2015). Furthermore, group process characteristics like shared decision making, trust, and collaboration have been linked to team satisfaction, synergy, and partnership success (Butterfoss, 2006; Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993; Carlton, Whiting, Bradford, Dyk, & Vail, 2009; Jagosh et al., 2015; Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001; author et al., 2016; Nichols, Anucha, Houwer, & Wood, 2013).

In addition, GLA supports the principles of IBL specifically autonomy, empowerment, and personal relevance. An inquiry-based tool like GLA serves to empower students to build a researcher identity with the autonomy and confidence to define research questions grounded in matters relevant to them and their communities. If implemented within the true spirit of IBL, GLA can promote what Duckworth (2006) describes as “the having of wonderful ideas.” Within GLA, students themselves determine what it is they want to understand within an environment of autonomy. In our YBC program, the GLA process emphasizes meeting the students where they are and bringing front and center their academic and social/emotional development, their personal lived experiences, and issues important to them. In contrast to a content or topic-focused curriculum, GLA emphasizes the contextual and cultural backgrounds of the students, their communities, and societal trends. Through the GLA conducted at the outset of our YBC program each year, youth are actively engaged in inquiry around STEM thinking and problem-solving from the very start.

Seiler (2001) suggested that science education would benefit by incorporating student aims and interests and from teachers and learners engaging with science in novel ways. Ten qualities of GLA make it a valuable and innovative methodological tool for science educators.

  • 1. GLA promotes co-construction of knowledge between students and teachers.

  • 2. GLA is student-centered through all seven steps.

  • 3. GLA demands student engagement which has the potential to facilitate learning.

  • 4. GLA provides opportunities for student agency and buy-in.

  • 5. GLA emphasizes student needs, assets, and priorities.

  • 6. GLA is collaborative and process-oriented focusing on relationships.

  • 7. GLA allows for co-creation and co-design between students and teachers.

  • 8. GLA facilitates individual and group reflection.

  • 9. GLA has a built-in structure that has students generate ideas, evaluate ideas, and prioritize ideas for action.

  • 10. GLA is flexible and can be used in multiple ways (e.g., needs assessment, evaluation, idea generation).

Like every tool in an educator’s toolbox, GLA is not without challenges. Within the GLA process, the relations between students and teachers and other stakeholders can be strained by power and hierarchy rendering students unable or unwilling to express themselves freely. GLA requires a shift in learning on everyone’s part and some educational environments may not be suited for student autonomy or may view GLA as an interruption to teacher-driven decision-making dynamics. A valued benefit of GLA is student autonomy, therefore calling for a disruption in the way teachers and/or schools may view the learning process and embracing student lived experiences/perspectives as valuable and valid knowledge. In traditional learning environments, and even within CBPR- and IBL-based approaches, it may be expected by students that teachers remain in the driver’s seat, so that students cannot generate new ideas but instead parrot information they have learned. Truly embracing GLA as a tool for inquiry in science education requires educators to make a paradigm shift from the teacher-student status quo and mandates all parties to buy into equitable shared decision-making. To orchestrate this shift, GLA requires a skilled facilitator who is trained in group dynamics and participatory research methodology. Identifying the right people to lead the process can sometimes be a significant limitation to a successful GLA process.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Embedded within the values and common factors of a CBPR and IBL integrated approach, GLA is an ideal tool to promote personal relevance, shared decision making, systematic inquiry and collaboration within science education. GLA provides a way to put CBPR and IBL into action from the first step of a project or curriculum. Exposure to methodological tools such as GLA gives students the opportunity to not only partake in the research process themselves but also gain experience with specific tools and practical applications of science they can later replicate when exploring social issues in their community. The process of GLA itself is designed to be a collaborative “meaning-making space that can generate insights and understandings,” an objective that can be challenging with traditional science education tools (Bellefeuille et al., 2014). GLA allows students to not only have space to reflect on their own personal lived experiences but also to reflect on how they understand research and can collaborate to solve real-world problems.

In addition, the GLA process itself promotes social and emotional development, increases self-efficacy, enhances autonomy, provides opportunities to explore diverse perspectives, and builds community awareness (author et al., 2017). Thus, GLA can be used in multiple ways within science education to help engage students in the scientific inquiry process: generate research questions, identify assets and barriers, assess interest in topics for learning activities, evaluate project outcomes, understand collaborative work, and co-design curriculum objectives. Within GLA, students shift their role from passive recipient of teacher knowledge to active collaborator, with their voices and agency at the center of learning. GLA can also create opportunities to bring students’ lived experiences into the classroom. GLA and other methodological tools like it present an exciting, concrete way to answer the calls to make STEM education more relevant and meaningful for all students by incorporating human interactions and diverse lived experiences within a student-centered inquiry process (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014).

In conclusion, GLA is a relevant, concrete, and practical tool that sets the stage for educators to meet both the Science and Engineering Practice dimension of NGSS and STEM “standards of experience” (Katz, 2010). Positioned within CBPR and IBL approaches, the process of GLA encourages students to be intellectually engaged and challenged, participate in long-term investigations stemming from personal interests, take initiative and exercise choice and problem-solving, engage in extended interactions, exist within a community of learners, apply developing conceptual skills in meaningful ways, and feel as if they belong and have ownership of the program and their research.

Acknowledgments:

Research reported in this publication was supported by a Science Education Partnership Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences under award number R25OD023763-01.

Contributor Information

Lisa M. Vaughn, Pediatrics Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine; Joint Appointment, University of Cincinnati College of Education, Criminal Justice & Human Services, Educational Studies Community-Based Action Research, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45229.

Farrah Jacquez, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 2210376, Cincinnati, OH 45229.

Alice Deters, University of Cincinnati, 2610 McMicken Circle, Cincinnati, OH 45221.

Alicia Boards, University of Cincinnati, 2610 McMicken Circle, Cincinnati, OH 45221.

References

  1. Allen-Ramdial SAA, & Campbell AG (2014). Reimagining the pipeline: Advancing STEM diversity, persistence, and success. BioScience, 64(7), 612–618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balazs CL, & Morello-Frosch R. (2013). The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environmental Justice, 6(1), 9–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barton AC, Tan E, & Rivet A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell P, Tzou C, Bricker L, & Baines AD (2012). Learning in diversities of structures of social practice: Accounting for how, why and where people learn science. Human Development, 55(5–6), 269–284. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell T, Urhahne D, Schanze S, & Ploetzner R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellefeuille G, Ekdahl C, Kent L, & Kluczny M. (2014). A course-based creative inquiry approach to teaching introductory research methods in child and youth care undergraduate education. International Journal of Teaching & Education, 2(2), 1. [Google Scholar]
  8. Author et al. (2018). Fathers know best: Inner-city African American fathers’ perceptions regarding their involvement in the pediatric medical home. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(3), 617–622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boaler J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62. [Google Scholar]
  10. Buchanan S, Harlan MA, Bruce CS, & Edwards SL (2016). Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke JG, Hess S, Hoffmann K, Guizzetti L, Loy E, Gielen A, . . . Yonas M. (2013). Translating community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles into practice: Building a research agenda to reduce intimate partner violence. Progress in Community Health Partnership, 7(2), 115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Butterfoss FD (2006). Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, & Wandersman A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8(3), 315–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Carlton EL, Whiting JB, Bradford K, Dyk PH, & Vail A. (2009). Defining factors of successful university‐community collaborations: an exploration of one healthy marriage project. Family Relations, 58(1), 28–40. [Google Scholar]
  15. Choe AY, Unaka NI, Schondelmeyer AC, Bignall WJR, Vilvens HL, & Thomson JE (2019). Inpatient communication barriers and drivers when caring for limited English proficiency children. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 14, E1–E7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Author et al. (2017). Youth-led participatory action research: A collaborative methodology for health, education and social change Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/case/youth-led-participatory-action-research-health-education-social-change
  17. Duckworth E. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning, 3rd edition. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrera MJ, Sacks TK, Perez M, Nixon JP, Asis D, & Coleman RWL (2015). Empowering immigrant youth in Chicago: utilizing CBPR to document the impact of a youth health service corps program. Family & Community Health, 38(1), 12–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao N, Adan S, Lopes L, & Lee G. (2018). Implementing the next generation science standards: Early evidence from California. Retrieved from the Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco, CA. [Google Scholar]
  20. Author et al. (2012). Perceptions of physician bedside handoff with nurse and family involvement. Hospital Pediatrics, 2(1), 34–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Author et al. (2015). Developing strategies for positive change: Transitioning foster youth to adulthood. Children & Youth Services Review, 54, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  22. Guy B. (2017). Movers, shakers, & everyone in between: Faculty personas surrounding active learning in the undergraduate STEM classroom. Inquiry in Education, 9(2), 6. [Google Scholar]
  23. Guy B, & Boards A. (2019). A seat at the table: Exploring the experiences of underrepresented minority women in STEM graduate programs. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Habermas J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans.): Beacon Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, & Parker EA (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health, 2nd edition: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  26. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB, Allen AJ, Guzman JR, & Lichtenstein R. (2017). Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel J, & Minkler M, Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity, 31–46: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  27. Authors et al. (in press). Creating a culture of youth as co-researchers: The kickoff of a year-long stem pipeline program. Journal of STEM Outreach. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Authors et al. (2013). Youth as partners, participants or passive recipients: A review of children and adolescents in community-based participatory research (CBPR). American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 176–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, . . . Pluye P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jardine CG, & James A. (2012). Youth researching youth: benefits, limitations and ethical considerations within a participatory research process. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71(1), 18415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Katz LG (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2), 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kohfeldt D, Chhun L, Grace S, & Langhout RD (2011). Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in school-based YPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 28–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lasker RD, Weiss ES, & Miller R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179–205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Author et al. (2016). The journey and destination need to be intentional: Perceptions of success in community-academic research partnerships. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 9(1), 1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Author et al. (2019). Health promoting ideas and actions generated by community engagement in an underserved Swedish area: European Journal of Public Health, 29(Supplement_4), ckz186. 009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Minner DD, Levy AJ, & Century J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nichols N, Anucha U, Houwer R, & Wood M. (2013). Building equitable community-academic research collaborations: Learning together through tensions and contradictions. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 6, 57–76–57–76. [Google Scholar]
  38. Núñez JL, & León J. (2015). Autonomy support in the classroom: A review from self-determination theory. European Psychologist, 20(4), 275. [Google Scholar]
  39. Raider-Roth M, Rector-Aranda A, Kaiser T, Lipinsky L, Weikel A, Wolkenfeld S, & Zaidenberg L. (2019). Shared Power, Risk-taking, and Innovation: Participatory Action Research in Jewish Education. Journal of Jewish Education, 85(2), 187–208. [Google Scholar]
  40. Scardamalia M, & Bereiter C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Guthrie JW (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370–1373): Macmillan; Reference. [Google Scholar]
  41. Author et al. , (2019). Factors influencing use of continuous physiologic monitors for hospitalized pediatric patients. Hospital Pediatrics, 9(6), 423–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schweingruber H, Quinn H, Keller T, & Pearson G. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Looking toward the future of science education. Bridge, 43(1), 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  43. Seiler G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000–1014. [Google Scholar]
  44. Slough SW, & Milam JO (2013). Theoretical framework for the design of STEM project-based learning. In STEM Project-Based Learning (pp. 15–27). Brill Sense. [Google Scholar]
  45. Small T. (2009). Assessing enquiry-based learning: developing objective criteria from personal knowledge. The Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 253–270. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stevens DM (2019). Practitioner Action Research in an Urban STEM High School. In Mertler CA (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education (Vol. Hoboken, NJ, pp. 497–512): John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  47. Stuckey M, Hofstein A, Mamlok-Naaman R, & Eilks I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  48. Suleiman AB, Soleimanpour S, & London J. (2006). Youth action for health through youth-led research. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 125–145. [Google Scholar]
  49. Authors et al. (2011) Partnering with students to explore the health needs of an ethnically diverse, low-resource school: An innovative large group assessment approach. Family & Community Health, 34(1), 72–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Author (2019). Psychology and culture: Thinking, feeling and behaving in a global context, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  51. Author et al. (2019). Methodological Progress Note: Group Level Assessment. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 14, E1–E3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Author et al. (1998). Using the group level assessment in a support group setting. Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 99. [Google Scholar]
  53. Author et al. (2014). Calling all stakeholders: Group-level assessment (GLA)—A qualitative and participatory method for large groups. Evaluation Review, 38(4), 336–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Vygotsky LS (1987). Development of higher mental functions during the transition age. In Rieber RW (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (pp. 83–150): Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wallerstein N, & Duran B. (2017). The theoretical, historical and practice roots of CBPR. Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity, 17–29: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel J, & Minkler M. (2017). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES