Not just a blip in someone’s life: integrating brokering practices into out-of-school programming as a means of supporting and expanding youth futures

Abstract

Purpose-This article makes a case for the importance of brokering future learning opportunities to youth as a programmatic goal for informal learning organizations. Such brokering entails engaging in practices that connect youth to events, programs, internships, individuals and institutions related to their interests to support them beyond the window of a specific program or event. Brokering is especially critical for youth who are new to an area of interest: it helps them develop both a baseline understanding of the information landscape and a social network that will respond to their needs as they pursue various goals. The paper aims to describe three critical levers for brokering well in informal settings: creating learning environments that allow trust to form between youth and educators and enable educators to develop an understanding of a young person's interests, needs and goals; attending to a young person's tendency (or not) to reach out to educators after a program is over to solicit assistance; and enabling potential brokers to efficiently locate appropriate future learning opportunities for each young person who approaches them. The authors also include a set of program practices for providers who wish to increase their brokering impact, as well as recommendations geared primarily toward organization leaders. The authors hope that this paper brings clarity and enhanced significance to the practice of brokering as a strategy to support youth pathways toward meaningful futures. Design/methodology/approach-Insights presented here are the result of a participatory knowledge building and sharing process with a community of after-school providers known as the Mozilla Hive NYC Learning Network. The topic of discussion was how these providers might continue to support young people in their intensive project-based programs after the program was over. The authors of this article, acting as embedded research partners to Hive NYC, contributed insights to these discussions based on ethnographic fieldwork and case studies of high-school-age youth in the Hive NYC context. Findings-The authors articulate a set of brokering practices and a conceptual model that communicates how brokering might lead to valued long-term outcomes for youth, including increased social capital. Originality/value-The intent is that information and perspectives from this article will inform youth-serving practice and serve as a catalyst for further conversations and activities geared toward promoting youth pathways of learning and identity development.

Symbiotic learning partnerships in youth action sports: Vibing, rhythm, and analytic cycles

“…In line with this focus on ‘multiplications’, there are burgeoning accounts, for instance, of the role of brokers within and beyond informal learning settings, those who link youth to other peers, mentors, and organizations who can further their pursuits (Ching et al, 2015). As Ching and colleagues (Ching et al, 2016) have importantly argued, however, ‘it is not enough to focus just on optimizing the learning that happens within particular programs and supportive spaces; we must also build bridges between these programs and spaces’ (p. 16). Perhaps, though, by creating symbiotic learning partnerships within programs – by creating opportunities for these multiplications to emerge – educators, mentors, and designers can build bridges that are not simply one-way paths for individual students, but rather robust thoroughfares that enable learners and their partners to travel alongside one another, together.…”

Principles of Collaborative Education Research With Stakeholders: Toward Requirements for a New Research and Development Infrastructure

“…The research has also informed an emerging literature that focuses on changing conceptions of the relationship between families and schools. For example, research on the topic of “brokering” and parents’ roles in supporting students in finding opportunities to pursue educational opportunities across different settings related to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) has drawn on lessons from PRIMES (Ching et al, 2016). Inspired by the idea of “systemic repair,” scholars seeking to shift away from school-centered parent engagement models have also pointed to PRIMES as an example for how to do so (Jay et al, 2017).…”

Reframing After-School Programs as Developing Youth Interest, Identity, and Social Capital

“…This suggests that assigning students the responsibility for identifying personal interests can reduce opportunities to develop interest. Furthermore, students of color may not always view asking for help to explore their interests as allowed or appropriate (Ching et al, 2016;Schwartz et al, 2016).…”

“…In the Hive NYC network, informal learning programs support brokering for youth (Ching et al, 2016). Examples of how to broker within an educational organization include making brokering an explicit practice and encouraging adults to recognize behaviors that may suggest that youth are signaling a desire to learn more (Ching et al, 2018).…”