Extending Learning Opportunities: Youth Research in CTE and the Limits of a Theory of Change

Abstract

In career and technical education (CTE), the vocational-academic divide continues to influence practices and policies that shape students’ experiences. Drawing on a qualitative study and retrospective analysis, we argue that hands-on learning with critical praxis is important for engaging students in CTE. A theory of change, focused on the human potential of students in the process of becoming, offers possibilities for extending learning opportunities. For educators, enacting a theory of change in any learning environment is difficult and, at times, still not enough. In this article, the authors reflect on their experiences working with students interested in multimedia production who engaged in youth participatory action research at one particular CTE high school.

Full text

Equity & Excellence in Education
ISSN: 1066-5684 (Print) 1547-3457 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ueee20
Extending Learning Opportunities: Youth
Research in CTE and the Limits of a Theory of
Change
Korina M. Jocson & Itza D. Martínez
To cite this article: Korina M. Jocson & Itza D. Martínez (2020) Extending Learning
Opportunities: Youth Research in CTE and the Limits of a Theory of Change, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 53:1-2, 165-176, DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2020.1763552
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2020.1763552
Published online: 22 Jun 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 933
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueee20

Extending Learning Opportunities: Youth Research in CTE and the
Limits of a Theory of Change
Korina M. Jocson and Itza D. Martínez
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
ABSTRACT
In career and technical education (CTE), the vocational-academic divide con-
tinues to influence practices and policies that shape students’experiences.
Drawing on a qualitative study and retrospective analysis, we argue that
hands-on learning with critical praxis is important for engaging students in
CTE. A theory of change, focused on the human potential of students in the
process of becoming, offers possibilities for extending learning opportunities.
For educators, enacting a theory of change in any learning environment is
difficult and, at times, still not enough. In this article, the authors reflect on their
experiences working with students interested in multimedia production who
engaged in youth participatory action research at one particular CTE high
school.
Policy discourses of career and technical education (CTE) have contributed to the shaping of how
historically marginalized and racially minoritized students are seen, treated, and served by educa-
tional institutions. For decades, the academic-vocational divide has reinforced the idea that hands-on
learning works best for particular groups of students and not for others. These students are often
deemed as not smart enough or as incapable of doing traditional academic work, and also are likely
to be from a lower socioeconomic status. While these ideas have been challenged, the vocational-
academic divide continues to influence CTE practices and policies to adjust to, align with, and fill the
needs of labor markets (Jocson, 2018; Rose, 2004,2012). What does it mean for CTE to extend
learning opportunities beyond vocation? What would it take to shape classroom practices and school
policies to focus less on the needs of the economy and more on the needs of students? How would
teachers engage in hands-on learning with critical praxis? What would this look like in CTE? What
different forms of participation would this type of learning engender? Is a theory of change possible
given the long history of vocational education? These questions inform our inquiry and guide the
pedagogical possibilities we seek in CTE. Simply put, the material and discursive concepts of “work”
and “readiness”in line with the “needs of the economy”dominate CTE and require us to rethink the
ways in which these concepts may be reinforcing or deepening educational and social inequalities for
historically marginalized students.
The recent pandemic is illustrative. During the COVID-19 outbreak, not only were health
disparities among racial groups made clear but social and economic disparities also became increas-
ingly evident due to the types of work in which people engage. On the one hand, those who were
deemed by governing entities as non-essential had the privilege to stay home and work remotely,
assuming they had access to the internet. On the other hand, those who were deemed essential (in
food, transportation, health, agricultural, mechanical, and related services) had little to no choice but
to physically go to work. These essential workers were on the front lines to maintain day-to-day
infrastructure and risked their lives for the benefit of the public good. Such occupational niches are
CONTACT Korina M. Jocson kjocson@umass.edu
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2020 University of Massachusetts Amherst College of Education
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 53, NOS. 1–2, 165–176
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2020.1763552

principally hands-on and, as underscored in policy discourse, are what makes CTE an integral part
of education in relation to the economy. In other words, CTE provides the training ground for
creating a labor force that meets economic needs and shifting labor markets. The model is ideal
particularly in the spirit of economic revitalization. At the same time, however, it is a model that may
undermine human capacities and reinforce the academic-vocational divide (Rose, 2004; also see
Nussbaum, 2003,2011; Sen, 1985,2004). From what we have witnessed during the coronavirus
pandemic, a particular labor force is needed to support the functionality of modern society in a time
of crisis. But this labor force is also the most vulnerable (Kagan, 2020). That is, a disproportionate
number of essential workers are not only at a higher risk of potentially contracting the virus due to
exposure (Artiga et al., 2020), but ironically are often the first to be let go by small and big
businesses. Being on the front lines is one thing; being on the front lines as shaped by a limited
purview of human potential is another. Black, Brown, and Indigenous bodies deemed as less than
human act as buffers to the onslaught of the pandemic (Kendi, 2020; Travers, n.d.). There are too
many lives at stake. While the global impact of the pandemic serves as a reminder, there are
longstanding educational and social inequalities that require us to pay attention even more. It is
to this end that we argue for a theory of change such that the human potential of students in CTE—
as one setting for interventions—remains central in education. We begin with an overview of CTE to
contextualize our reflection, then provide an example of Black and Latine
1
students engaged in
youth-driven projects as part of a theory of change in CTE, and offer some lessons learned to suggest
alternative possibilities in CTE.
CTE, vocation, and human potential
The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 was a 1.4 billion USD investment with
the purpose of preparing youth and adults to be more “skilled, adaptable, creative, and equipped for
success in the global marketplace”(U.S. Department of Education, 2012). According to the Perkins Act,
transforming CTE involves four core principles: alignment between CTE programs and the labor market;
collaboration among secondary and postsecondary institutions, employers, and industry partners;
accountability for academic outcomes and employability skills for all students; and innovation to support
CTE implementation with effective practices. As a federal policy, CTE programs utilize incentives and
increased autonomy for states that yield high-quality programming and high performance from local
recipients. In July of 2018, the President of the United States signed into law a bill called Strengthening
Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This bill reauthorized the Perkins Act of 2006.
Currently referred to as Perkins V, this policy took effect beginning July of 2019 with 1.2–1.3 billion USD
in spending over the next five years.
In brief, Perkins V “affords states and local communities the opportunity to implement a vision for
CTE that uniquely supports the range of educational needs of students—exploration through career
preparation—and balances those student needs with the current and emerging needs of the economy”
(www.careertech.org/perkins). It makes clear that aligning with the “needs of the economy”is central
to CTE programming. Elsewhere, the first author (Jocson, 2018) has discussed the historical origins of
present-day CTE, which is rooted is vocation and manual training to meet society’sneeds.Itis
important to reiterate some aspects of CTE’s early influences here in connection to human potential.
Prior to vocational education, apprenticeship with children was common among families. This social
practice later became instruction under the tutelage of a “master”craftsperson toward labor on the
industrial floor with the rise of the factory (Gordon, 2008). Formal preparation for the workplace
emerged as a result of industrialization’s division of labor calling for more specialized training. Such
preparation centered on vocational education to provide students with job-specific skills in the areas of
agriculture, home economics, trade, and industry. Federal legislation was established under different
names—Morrill Act of 1862, Smith Hughes Act of 1917, Vocational Act of 1963, Perkins Act of 1984
and so forth. Over time, vocational education became separate from academic instruction in schools
until recently when the Perkins Act evolved to complement work-based learning. Continued
166 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ

amendments to the Perkins Act as situated within neoliberal reforms of education are inclusive of
different populations, academic integration, and accountability for student performance (Hernández-
Gantes & Blank, 2008; Scott & Sarkees-Wircenski, 2004). Today, CTE is put forth as supporting the
educational needs of students and complementing the needs of the economy.
While the alignment with the economy may be exciting for many, as a policy discourse, CTE
continues to place emphasis on hands-on learning to correspond with career clusters with the labor
market (read: vocation). We argue otherwise and, instead, believe in the human potential of young
people to engage in hands-on learning with critical praxis. We borrow from the capability approach
which suggests the importance of functionings (beings and doings) and capabilities (the opportu-
nities to achieve those beings and doings) central to human development (Nussbaum, 2003,2011;
Sen, 1985,2004). Yet we also consider the broader influences of social arrangements, discourses, and
institutions such as schools in shaping possible functionings and capabilities that are not inherent to
the individual. There are always material and discursive forces at play that influence rhizomatic
becomings (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), a point to which we will return in pursuing youth research in
CTE. For us, and particularly in the analysis that ensues, the notion of human potential extends
beyond vocation because students are more than just bodies to fill occupational niches. We highlight
one example to draw attention to students in the process of becoming. In this reflection, we aim to
offer ways of thinking about CTE not only as an understudied area but also as a learning environ-
ment for considering youth-driven approaches toward a theory of change (Jocson, 2013; Tuck &
Yang, 2014). This was the focus of our work.
Theory of change in CTE
Tuck and Yang (2014) define a theory of change as “a belief or perspective about how a situation can
be adjusted, corrected, or improved”(p. 13). Drawing on this perspective, we turned to students in
a CTE multimedia classroom for input on how to improve teaching and learning in a school that
prides itself on being the best vocational and technical school in western Massachusetts. We wanted to
be responsive to students’interests and feedback in shaping their learning environment within the
multimedia classroom. We were less interested in test scores (which had been the trend for results-
driven approaches in CTE) and more interested in the process of adjusting, correcting, or improving
a particular situation for students, to center their interests in light of a theory of change. In other
words, we were interested in being pedagogy-driven. With possibilities of critical praxis in mind, we
drew on the idea that an understanding of change begins with listening to youth about what they care
about or desire to live through (Paris & Winn, 2013;Tuck,2009); this idea ran counter to many
assumptions about particular groups of young people who are often placed in fixed categories or seen
through a deficit lens, dubbed as not being capable of doing academic work or not valuing education in
shaping their futures. We elevated our approach to critical praxis by drawing on what students had to
say about their learning. We then drew on tenets of youth participatory action research (YPAR) as
a potential way of engaging students in hands-on learning that also might be transformative to the
communities in which the youth participants live (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). In short, we wanted
more than anything to provide a counterspace and an alternative framework for the CTE multimedia
students to thrive in a classroom learning environment that had been rigid and unresponsive to them.
The following research question guided our study: In what ways can responding to students’feedback
shape a theory of change and expand learning opportunities in CTE?
In a yearlong qualitative study, we were strategic in our approach to center experiences of
students in their multimedia class (or “shop”as more commonly used by students and teachers).
Many of the students who attend Poly High School (pseudonym) come from poor and low-income
backgrounds. Upon our arrival at the school in 2016, we gathered that students had been unhappy
and frustrated about their experiences in their multimedia class. There was much buzz among
students about moving to other shops or shifting vocational tracks especially because they felt
unheard by their teacher. In fact, two students did transfer out of the multimedia class later in
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION 167

the year. With these initial observations, we proceeded to engage a theory of change that built on
students’feedback in order to honor students’funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). This offered
a different opportunity for students to help shape what they could be doing in the classroom, and
why they themselves and their ideas matter in their learning. It seemed to us that the teacher’s
pedagogy was driven by testing and accountability informed by CTE policy discourse; it also became
apparent in a short amount of time that the teacher believed in being the sole expert in the
classroom.
Our theory of change led us to YPAR as a pedagogical possibility. Because YPAR draws on
participatory action research, it was important to engage participants in taking action on their own
behalf as part of their communities (Chevalier & Buckles, 2013;Merriam&Tisdell,2016). YPAR
emphasizes collective inquiry grounded in lived experience; it is steeped in roots of social justice and
lends a critical praxis to classrooms and literacy programs (Freire, 1970; Freire & Macedo, 1987).
Through YPAR we were supporting a critical pedagogical approach that centers breaking down
“inherent power relations in traditional pedagogy and identifies students as collaborators with adults”
(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 12). YPAR provides opportunities for creating a space where
a theory of expansive learning is visibly “enacted through substantive investment in the learning of all
participants”(Cammarota & Fine, 2008, p. 190). From this notion of expansive learning, we considered
the complex nature of the students’experiences in a way that is humanizing and enabling, which in
our case involved the students shaping learning activities and choosing research topics they deemed
most pressing for youth their age. The research topics selected by students, along with their research
designs, eventually formed the basis of their multimedia production group projects. As with any
innovation or experimentation in the classroom, such pedagogical processes are never simple and at
times are mired in contradictions. Before turning to students’group projects and what we learned from
our theory of change, it is important to contextualize the study.
Methods and modes of inquiry
In this research, we employed ethnographic methods such as participant observations, interviews,
photo documentation and video recording of class sessions, and collection of student artifacts related
to the multimedia production group projects. The university research team at the time of this study
consisted of a faculty member and four graduate student researchers from a local university. All are
people of color; three identified as cisgender women and two cisgender men at the time of the study.
The research team members served as partners and collaborators in the multimedia classroom at
Poly High School.
The first author (Korina) is Filipina American who has taught and partnered with educators in
urban schools and youth-based organizations across the U.S. She was invited to Poly High School by
a school administrator to see about potential partnerships with teachers. After several school site
visits and meetings, new initiatives were established; one of which was in the multimedia class
(within the Arts and Communication Career Cluster). Korina initially worked with the multimedia
teacher to devise a plan for project-based learning. Regular discussions among the research team
were held in person or online, and with notes recorded in a secured online cloud shared among the
members of the research team. These notes provided the team a method for updates, memos, and
related questions. The second author (Itza) is Puerto Rican who has professional experience in
project-based learning and expeditionary learning pedagogy. She had worked in the same school
district prior to this research project and, thus, had some understanding of Poly High’s educational
context. With a background in Art Education, which proved to be key for the research team, part of
her role was to assist in the visual elements of the students’work in their multimedia group projects.
Itza was adept at using Google Forms and eventually provided a tutorial in class to help students
create a form for their YPAR projects. The form resulted in online surveys in order to reach more
people during data collection.
168 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ

The multimedia class consisted of ten eleventh grade students of color and one white student. The
multimedia teacher, a white male and fifty-something in age, began the multimedia program two
years prior to our collaboration. Korina’s entry into Poly High School was by invitation that then led
to a network of relationships. The collaboration began by developing rapport with the multimedia
teacher and students, and over time evolved into classroom teaching to help innovate pedagogical
approaches in the multimedia class. In the research process, we gathered various forms of empirical
material that later we revisited for this retrospective analysis. We were keen on what students were
saying about their class during the initial and latter stages of data analysis, including students’desire
to do something different altogether. As we will point in the discussion of YPAR projects, art was
used to support students’multimodal forms of expression.
After doing an adult-driven multimedia project in the first half of the school year (i.e., cityscapes
and historic landmarks), we turned to students for direct input about possible next steps. This
became our research team’s opening for thinking through a potential theory of change. Students
were specifically asking for the opportunity to work in groups and to have the ability to choose
a topic of their choice for the next project. Drawing on this direct input from students, it was
mutually decided that YPAR would enable youth-driven topics and multimedia production projects,
collaboration among group members, and co-construction of learning in the multimedia classroom.
At least, that was what we hoped for: a pedagogical move toward a theory of change in CTE. The
theory of change included two parts: (1) responding to students’feedback in shaping ideas and
directions for a group project and (2) employing YPAR in a multimedia production group project as
a means to engage hands-on learning with critical praxis. The latter served as a different approach to
multimedia production with which students were already very familiar (i.e., video recording, con-
ducting interviews, observing, online search for literature or relevant data). The participatory
research component, however, was new. The students did not seem to mind this fresh approach.
School and classroom context
The student population at Poly High School consisted of approximately 63% Latine, 21% Black, 11%
White, and 5% Asian, Multiracial, or Other; approximately 85% were reported as low-income.
According to the 2016 school data, graduation rate was below 60%. In keeping with federal policy
and goals of accountability, Poly High School was structurally remodeled in 2012 to promote
academic excellence under the auspices of the Perkins Act in preparing students for college and
the workplace. Having some understanding of Poly’s educational context and its redesign guided our
steps toward a theory of change. The eleventh grade multimedia classroom presented an ideal
learning environment for the YPAR multimedia production group projects that ensued. The multi-
media shop met every other week, consistent with the school’s A and B track schedule with two
grades on each track. During the study, we noticed that class attendance seemed to fluctuate with
two different grades having two different lunch schedules. Due to the different lunch schedules
between ninth and eleventh grade multimedia students occupying the same classroom space, the day
often began with all students as one group, then alternated between grades for particular learning
activities at particular segments of the classroom, and ended with all students together again. The
YPAR projects were conducted by the eleventh grade group in a span of ten weeks.
Engaging in YPAR projects
As a springboard to YPAR, our team first facilitated two introductory sessions through which we
offered key theoretical concepts and practical examples of YPAR across the U.S. (Cammarota & Fine,
2008; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). These sessions included large group discussions and
informal activities or related tasks in small groups. The students in this multimedia class, now as
youth researchers, used the remaining time in the first week to brainstorm ideas centered on their
perspectives and critiques of the media, specifically popular media’s (mis)representation of youth.
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION 169

Students raised questions and expressed what they deemed as the media’s ill-informed treatment of
and often skewed narratives about young people. Four teams were established based on their
preference, which was key in the process of identifying possible research topics and discussions
that ensued. The four teams selected the following topics: (a) Teen Parenthood, (b) Teens and
Internet Safety, (c) Student Athletes, (d) Teen “Violence”and Race. In one instance, Denise, an
eleventh grade Latine student on the Teen and Internet Safety Team, expressed how adults view
youth engaging with the internet (as unknowingly confused) versus what seemed to be how she and
her peers feel about the internet (as boldly agentic). The illustration as shown in Figure 1 portrayed
a marked distinction between a young woman on the left with question marks over her head and
a young woman on the right with her arms crossed and unmoved. The image on the right is
suggestive of “attitude”to loosely mean refusal in navigating the internet, yet also capable of making
informed choices online. That is to say, Denise used her art skills to illustrate some visioning for
what later became the basis for her team’s project.
Each team developed a survey of a minimum of ten questions; each group also had an opportunity
to input the survey questions into Google Forms. This enabled a more organized way of tallying survey
responses. Three of the four groups chose to collect the survey data by hand and then input the
responses into Google Forms themselves to facilitate mobility of the youth researchers as they gathered
the survey data. In addition to the survey, the youth researchers also planned and conducted interviews
with participants in their respective studies. These interviews were primarily conducted on school
grounds and mostly among their peers. Halfway into the study, the youth researchers not only
gathered their preliminary data but also began doing preliminary group analysis, with some support
from us as collaborators. The youth researchers eventually created a Google Slideshow based on their
findings and finalized presentation slides to be shared in a public event.
Youth researchers had an opportunity to participate in research colloquia day, which was purpose-
fully organized as a way to bring together groups of researchers at the local university. The event was
called “Ruptures and Crevices: Toward Youth/Community-Based Research and Practice.”Youth
researchers from the multimedia class were featured as panelists alongside other youth and graduate
student researchers. That day on the university campus included a walking campus tour, lunch in one
of the dining halls, and participation in research presentations. One notable moment during the
colloquia day was the question-and-answer portion of the youth researchers’presentations. In one
instance, a Latine professor engaged the presentations by asking the Student Athletes team about
methods in their data collection (see Figure 2, bottom right). Latine youth researcher Razel reached for
the microphone and exclaimed, “I got this!”Razel took a step forward to be front and center and used
Figure 1. Illustration by Denise as member of Teens & Internet Safety team.
170 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ

Figure 2. Youth researchers’team summary slides.
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION 171

his hands to gesture a more complete response. He proceeded to explain, “What we did was create
a Google Form, print out the surveys, and ask people at lunch, and talk to teachers during class or also
during their lunch if we could. Then we typed in the information in a Google Doc when we finished.”
Unphased within this pedagogical moment, Razel not only described his and his team’s methods for
research but also demonstrated the confidence in sharing the work involved and the results of such an
important research topic—the portrayal of student athletes in the media. Collectively, the four teams
presented their summary slides with very minimal linguistic fillers such as “ums”and “ahs”that even
we as adult researchers habitually utter in giving public presentations. The youth researchers referred
to graphs and tables on their slides and talked through the results of their survey method in tandem.
They had flash cards in hand which served as reminders for what they had practiced beforehand. The
use of flash cards, however, seemed redundant because, as one audience member noted, “they knew
their stuff.”From our view in the back of the room, the youth researchers responded fluidly and
readily to questions from audience members, many of whom had identified themselves as graduate
students and professors at the university. In short, the youth researchers claimed the colloquia space
and owned their research. That same week in class, the youth researchers shared in a debrief that this
moment was a “very cool”experience. The multimedia teacher who seemed reticent about the YPAR
project as a new learning activity revealed his surprise to us and said, “I was very proud …they did so
well.”We, as adult researchers, believed in youth-driven projects and enacting a theory of change that
allowed us to learn with students. In a desired-centered pedagogical process there is always more to
learn.
Toward a more humanizing pedagogy
Our study offers a unique lens into CTE as an understudied area and the particular ways in which
a theory of change shaped youth-driven projects in a historically adult-driven learning environment.
The pedagogical approaches we employed, based on a theory of change, led to direct input from
students, which then led to inquiry-based multimedia production group projects using YPAR. As
noted above, results-driven CTE programs lead the CTE policy discourse and often what this means
is that youth are less inclined to shape their own learning. So, as researchers-collaborators, we had to
pause to rethink not only our methodological but also our pedagogical approaches. We realized
something had to be adjusted in order to be answerable to students (Patel, 2016). This meant seeking
direct input and drawing on what students desired in their learning environment.
Knowledge as action or knowledge to action is without a theory of change (Tuck & Yang, 2014).
For example, in the context of our work, we were less interested in test scores or statistical outcomes.
We were more interested in shaping methodologically and, practically, how students produced
multimedia projects, how particular steps taken toward their multimedia projects expanded learning
opportunities in CTE, and how the particular topics selected for their multimedia projects added to
knowledge and discourses about youth. The “how”was key in realizing that, as researchers, we were
part of a humanizing process and had been uniquely positioned to be active collaborators in the
classroom with whom the students could entrust ideas for pedagogical innovations. This process
included confronting head on the existing tensions between students and their teacher, as well as
tensions between students themselves due to differing social dynamics and workflow preferences that
had been shaped by previous projects. We learned not to take sides and, instead, emphasized
relationship-building. Having a research team with multiple members, with whom students could
identify, supported processes and moments of relationship-building. We were keen on our role as
researchers-collaborators to model what is possible. This meant that we needed to shift our courses
of action as the youth researchers shifted theirs. There were some unforeseen challenges in the
research process beyond our control, such as school closings due to a snowstorm and absences of
group members due to illness. These challenges led to a couple of the teams having to modify their
project deadlines. There were similar challenges that affected the university research team as a result
of not being able to drive or other emergencies that constrained the team’s ability to make it to Poly
172 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ

High School. That said, it was important to remember that our position at the school had been
a privileged one given our affiliation with the local university.
With increased trust from students, and in consultation with the teacher, our role as researchers-
collaborators consisted of participating in group discussions, drafting questions alongside youth
researchers, brainstorming ideas that were dynamic in nature, and going on location shoots to more
directly shape the narrative stemming from the youth researchers’preliminary analyses. We had to be
flexible in this role for the duration of the YPAR project. With such deep engagement, we discovered
the complexities of doing group work also meant stepping aside to enable students to sometimes sort
things out on their own. We realized that engaging in (and enacting) a theory of change necessitates
having students steer their own learning. Although it is difficult to assess students’overall academic
performance in school as part of this theory of change, we found that individual students demonstrated
increased interest in YPAR and increased interest in the multimedia project, and thus increased
interest in expansive learning. We built on the latter to provide the teacher with examples for future
multimedia projects and for espousing more pedagogy-driven approaches.
Several of the youth researchers demonstrated a different response to learning, when they would
have disengaged in the multimedia classroom otherwise. Results-driven approaches common in CTE
seemed to have isolated or stigmatized students. Most noticeable for us as researchers-collaborators
was the way in which students were not participating in class initially and yet were the most
enthusiastic and involved during the YPAR projects. We argue that they were, in fact, being positioned
differently as students and as leaders in the process of becoming youth researchers. For instance, we
witnessed Razel, who otherwise would have been dismissed by the teacher. Instead, when Razel’s
buzzing phone was confiscated (creating an incensed disruption), we were able to proceed with
a discussion about refocusing on the task at hand because not only did the YPAR project need
Razel’s full attention but the team also looked to his leadership. We were reminded in this instance that
listening to students is key. We paused and took a moment to engage in a different response, and that
moment made all the difference. In realizing the importance of that pedagogical moment, Razel
returned to the group task to meet the larger goals of the YPAR project. And we trailed his steps.
Indeed, we as researchers-collaborators adjusted, corrected, and sought to expand learning
opportunities in a CTE multimedia class based on students’feedback. Incorporating group work
more intently through a YPAR multimedia project was one way to invigorate the curriculum. We
listened. And in doing so, we learned to be answerable to ourselves and to our students (Patel, 2016).
Beyond Vocation
In an effort to expand learning opportunities, we charged ourselves with working directly with
students to shape a theory of change in CTE. We prioritized students’interests and experiences to
inform pedagogical practices. But, like most educative endeavors, we had to be willing to address
existing tensions and cultivate forms of knowledge with students at the center. Overall, while echoing
the expectations of the CTE’s arts and communication career cluster in preparing students for
college and the workplace, the YPAR multimedia project aimed at promoting advanced thinking and
creative communication skills in addressing a social issue (in this case, misrepresentations of youth
in the media).
But what if a theory of change in CTE is not enough? So far, we have argued that tapping
students’human potential using a variety of methods to support students in CTE is vital (Rose, 2012,
2014). We have gained more insight by doing so. However, we pause again to ask ourselves, is
a theory of change really possible? Are there ways around the limits of a theory of change especially
when the entangled dimensions of the material and the discursive concepts of “work”and “readi-
ness”in CTE are always present? We think so.
To shift away from a historically deficit-oriented approach in CTE, we as researchers-
collaborators worked to center youth’s interests, particularly in doing a YPAR project, and discov-
ered that a theory of change could extend learning opportunities in the classroom. That is, we want
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION 173

to suggest that direct input from students in any learning environment can contour possible theories
of change. For us, we placed emphasis on relationship-building. As we have seen elsewhere (Jocson,
2013), examples of youth-centered practices and pedagogies of possibilities can open new ways of
working with young people both in school and community spaces. Our theory of change was marked
by a fleeting moment in one particular multimedia classroom but has provided us with necessary
insight into our future collaborative work with students, teachers, and partners in education. It
allowed us to see learning differently, to position ourselves differently, and thus to position students
in CTE differently. What happened was more than just the creation of a multimedia product or the
completion of a research project to fulfill class requirements and for students to submit for grading
purposes; it was about students, as youth researchers, engaging in learning opportunities through
which they participated in a process of becoming. It was about students steering their futures and
performing desires to express human potential in ways that fixed categories had not allowed in the
past. It was about students embracing particular moments that enabled intellectual risks across
various learning environments. It was about students.
While this reflection only presents a small aspect of a larger study, we learned that a theory of change
in CTE must forefront critical praxis (and hands-on learning beyond “vocation”)inwaysthatenable
youth researchers to become other-wise (Jocson & Dixon-Román, 2020;DaSilva,2007), because they are
seen, treated, and served by the educational institution differently. This is all the more important, as we
have come to understand how CTE is integral in education. Yet, in simultaneous fashion, CTE may
continue to disproportionately impact the lives of particular groups of students, their families, and their
communities based on race, socioeconomic status, and type of work as illuminated further by the
coronavirus pandemic. Here is an opportunity to (re)imagine different pedagogical possibilities.
We may have worked through a theory of change in CTE but we also acknowledge that it may not
be enough. We recognize the need to support learning opportunities that take up educational issues
pertinent to young people’s lives despite the rigidness of CTE to be centrally aligned with the “needs
of the economy.”We know this can be done creatively. Because that is precisely what the students as
youth researchers have demonstrated through their collective projects. Without question, we must
see students participating in complex forms of critical thinking and doing. We must learn alongside
them in processes of becoming. We must seek partners in education, build relationships, and work
directly with youth as co-conspirators in teaching and learning. We must be willing to innovate our
classrooms in ways that enable students to (re)claim and present their own (counter)stories. We
must be willing to be in dialogue to critique existing narratives about youth that have been
constructed by adults. We must also be willing to push the limits beyond what has been and ask
what could be in CTE. The multimedia class we have described here provides us with an example of
pedagogical possibilities. Still, we have a long way to go. Future research can help develop theories of
change to support teachers and other practitioners in meeting school demands and state account-
ability, and at the same time learn to leave room for what youth have to say and desire to do in
processes of becoming.
Note
1. Here, we privilege the term “Latine.”While the term “Latinx”is more commonly known, we prefer the use of
“Latine”to be gender inclusive but marking “e”as more in keeping with Spanish grammar than “x.”We
recognize that “Latinx”is a political term established by the LGBTQ+ community in the early 2000s. However,
“x”in the Spanish language is not used as a vowel; the inclusive “e”is and can be fluidly conjugated in “Latine.”
We also use Latine to replace Hispanic, a term that commonly appears in school data.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the youth researchers, students, teachers, and staff who welcomed us into their classrooms,
offices, and other spaces in the school at Poly High. Also a big thank you to the research team members for their
174 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ

commitment to critical education and interest in youth-centered practice. Lastly, we are grateful to peer reviewers
for their helpful comments on this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Korina M. Jocson is an associate professor of education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Her research
interests include youth literacies, media technology, culturally responsive pedagogy, and equity issues in education.
She has published a range of scholarly articles, essays, and books, including Youth Media Matters: Participatory
Cultures and Literacies in Education and Youth Poets: Empowering Literacies In and Out of Schools.
Itza D. Martínez is a doctoral candidate in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Her
research interests include social justice and equity in educational policy and leadership. She is currently conducting
research on the development and implementation of computer science for grades K-6 in western Massachusetts.
References
Artiga, S., Garfield, R., & Orgera, K. (2020, April 7). Communities of color at higher risk for health and economic
challenges due to COVID-19. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/commu
nities-of-color-at-higher-risk-for-health-and-economic-challenges-due-to-covid-19/
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion.
Routledge.
Chevalier, J., & Buckles, J. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Routledge.
da Silva, D. F. (2007). Toward a global idea of race. University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to
practice in urban schools. Peter Lang.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and reading the world. South Bergin & Garvey.
Gordon, H. (2008). The history and growth of career and technical education in American (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.
Hernández-Gantes, V., & Blank, W. (2008). Teaching English language learners across the curriculum in career and
technical education programs. Routledge.
Jocson, K. M. (Ed.). (2013). Cultural transformations: Youth and pedagogies of possibility. Harvard Education Press.
Jocson, K. M. (2018). “I want to do more and change things”: Reframing CTE toward possibilities in urban education.
Urban Education,53(5), 640–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618714
Jocson, K. M., & Dixon-Román, E. (2020). Becoming Shuri: CTE, racializing affect, and the becoming-technologist.
Reading Research Quarterly. (online first). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.310
Kagan, M. (2020, April 2). “Essential”workers are dying. Slate.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/essential-
workers-deaths-underclass.html
Kendi, I. (2020, April 1). Why don’t we know who the coronavirus victims are? The Atlantic.https://www.theatlantic.
com/ideas/archive/2020/04/stop-looking-away-race-covid-19-victims/609250/
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, M. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach
to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,XXXI(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405849209543534
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics,9(2/3),
33–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354570022000077926
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press.
Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and commu-
nities. Sage.
Patel, L. (2016). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. Routledge.
Rose, M. (2004). Mind at work: Valuing the intelligence of the American worker. Penguin.
Rose, M. (2012). Rethinking remedial education and the academic-vocational divide. Mind, Culture, and Activity,19
(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2011.632053
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION 175

Rose, M. (2014). Reframing career and technical education. Education Week.http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/
04/25/30rose.h33.html
Scott, J., & Sarkees-Wircenski, M. (2004). Overview of career and technical education (3rd ed.). American Technical.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists and public reasons: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics,10(3), 77–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1354570042000315163
Travers, J. (n.d.). The hardest hit: Who is supporting communities of color during COVID-19? Inside Philanthropy.
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2020/4/2/the-hardest-hit-who-is-supporting-communities-of-color-
during-covid-19
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review,79(3), 409–427. https://
doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (Eds.). (2014). Youth resistance research and theories of change. Routledge.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Investing in America’s future: A blueprint for transforming career and technical
education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
176 K. M. JOCSON AND I. D. MARTÍNEZ