Identifying Trends and Gaps in Middle Level Education Research: A Qualitative Content Analysis of the Literature Reviews from the 2024–2025 MLER SIG Research Agenda

Abstract

In 2022, middle level education researchers from across the United States and beyond began a multi-stage project that led to an updated research agenda for middle level education researchers and culminated in the publication of 13 literature reviews in 2024–2025 on a vast array of topics. As researchers, we were curious what these reviews revealed about the field of middle level education research. What trends were evident across topics? What gaps remain? Through qualitative content analysis, we identified nine recurring trends, including criticality and power dynamics, middle level teacher identity, and qualitative research methods, as well as nine gaps, including an absence of practical frameworks, weak integration of AI, and a lack of student voice and perspective. This article explores those nine trends and gaps within the current landscape of middle level education and the larger sociopolitical context, identifying areas for future scholarship and areas for growth within middle level preparation programs and advocacy efforts in support of young adolescent learners.

1. Introduction

Researchers across multiple disciplines, including developmental psychology, medicine, and education have defined early adolescence (typically between the ages of 10–14) as a unique developmental stage (K. M. Brinegar & Caskey, 2022). During this distinctive period of growth, young adolescents experience rapid physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development where they shape their beliefs and attitudes about themselves and the world and adopt habits and social behaviors that lay the foundation for adulthood (McCarthy et al., 2016). To meet the needs of these young adolescent learners, educational leaders across the last 60 years have advocated for middle level schooling to be different than its elementary and secondary counterparts in recognition of the need for educational programs and practices that focus on young adolescents’ developmental characteristics and needs (See Alexander, 1968; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Bishop & Harrison, 2021; K. M. Brinegar & Caskey, 2022).

Supporting young people during this crucial time in their lives requires acknowledging the shared developmental characteristics of young adolescents while recognizing that individuals experience early adolescence differently (Bishop & Harrison, 2021; K. M. Brinegar & Caskey, 2022; Harrison et al., 2019). All young adolescents deserve educational experiences and schools that address their physical, cognitive, social–emotional, and psychological developmental characteristics in culturally sustaining and affirming ways. This content analysis draws on this longstanding focus on the specific educational needs of young adolescents to support today’s educators and policymakers in advocating for continued research on promising practices for providing developmentally and culturally appropriate learning experiences and environments.

In 1997, the National Middle School Association (NMSA; now the Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE]) published a research agenda based on their 1995 publication This We Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle Schools. This agenda paved the way for future comprehensive examinations of middle level education research. Almost 20 years later, in 2016, the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group (MLER SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) published a second research agenda as a white paper identifying critical issues and concerns facing the field of middle level education. This white paper brought together eight thematic working groups composed of researchers from across the United States and beyond. Each working group conducted an extensive literature review in their focus area, culminating in the publication of a set of questions in each area to guide future middle level research (see Mertens et al., 2016).

Then, in 2024, the MLER SIG published a second research agenda (see K. Brinegar et al., 2024) that illuminated unanswered research questions related to supporting young adolescents within the current state of affairs, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; divisive education legislation and policy related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools and research; and general legislative and executive attacks on public education. It also sought to examine middle level education research since 2016, in light of ongoing critiques of middle level education research being colorblind and whitewashed (K. Brinegar, 2015; Busey & Gainer, 2022; Harrison et al., 2019) and calls for it to focus more on supporting and uplifting young adolescents with minoritized identities (Bishop & Harrison, 2021). The research summarized in that article represented eight focus areas as they relate to this current context: (a) middle grades curriculum; (b) middle grades pedagogies; (c) middle level certification and licensure; (d) middle level leadership; (e) middle level schools, classrooms, culture, and learning environments; (f) middle level teacher development; (g) social and emotional wellbeing; and (h) young adolescent identity and experiences. This multi-stage project led to an updated research agenda for middle level researchers (see K. Brinegar et al., 2024) and culminated in the publication of 13 literature reviews on topics from the MLER SIG Research Agenda.

The primary goals of this most recent MLER SIG Research Agenda project were as follows: “(a) create partnerships and connections among middle grades researchers, (b) identify critical areas of need in research in middle grades education, (c) generate questions to guide future middle grades research connected to these critical needs, and (d) disseminate the findings of the project in a variety of ways (i.e., journal publications, academic presentations, policy briefs)” (K. Brinegar et al., 2024, p. 26). The research presented here continues the MLER SIG’s efforts to meet those goals. As a collaborative group of researchers across different contexts, we were curious about what these literature reviews revealed about the field of middle level education research, particularly as research questions and projects do not often fit neatly within the original eight categories defined within the research agenda. While each of the 13 literature reviews provides critical insight into its topic area, no synthesis has yet examined how middle level researchers are responding to shifting social and educational conditions, as well as how the field has responded to the calls from previous research agendas. This synthesis is particularly important because middle level education remains a relatively young field, making it essential for middle level researchers to continually examine the practices and potential within changing sociopolitical contexts. Currently, middle level teacher preparation programs are dwindling, public education faces ongoing legislative attacks, and the field continues to grapple with calls to center equity and justice in research and practice. Without examining these reviews together, we risk missing critical patterns in our methodological approaches, overlooking opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, and failing to coordinate research efforts in ways that could strengthen advocacy for young adolescents and middle level education.

This study addresses that gap by offering an analysis of trends and gaps across the MLER SIG research agenda-aligned reviews. By identifying recurring themes and persistent gaps, this work provides a snapshot of the current state of middle level research and offers directions for future empirical studies, teacher preparation practices, and equity-focused efforts to support young adolescent learners. To accomplish this goal, we engaged in a qualitative content analysis to examine what the literature reviews from the MLER SIG Research Agenda reveal about the historical trajectory of middle level education research and explore how they collectively uncover new directions for future scholarship and practice in the field. From an interdisciplinary perspective, what trends were evident across topics? What gaps remain?

In total, we identified seven trends and seven gaps that were present across three or more of the literature reviews. Within this paper we will unpack the following trends, (a) criticality and power dynamics, (b) interdisciplinary approaches to learning, (c) middle level teacher identity, (d) culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy (e) family and community collaboration, (f) focus on young adolescent identity, and (g) qualitative research methods as well as the following gaps, (a) lack of student voice and perspective, (b) need for more diverse research methods, (c) limited focus on diverse perspectives and identities, (d) absence of practical frameworks, (e) incomplete teacher preparation, (f) weak integration of technology, AI, and digital learning, and (g) more middle level specific research needed. We share our findings and reflect on how the current landscape of middle level research might inform future scholarship, teacher preparation, and advocacy efforts in support of young adolescent learners. Drawing from the past, we use these reviews to imagine new possibilities for collective scholarship, planning, and inquiry that center the needs of young adolescents in a shifting educational landscape.

2. Materials and Methods

Study Design

This study was designed to both reflect on past work and look forward to new opportunities within the field of middle level education research. We performed a thematic qualitative content analysis of 13 literature reviews in support of the 2024 AERA MLER SIG Research Agenda. These 13 literature reviews were published in a Special Issue of Education Sciences titled: Moving Forward: Research to Guide Middle Level Education. All 13 of the literature reviews were published between 11 September 2024 and 19 February 2025. We chose to focus our analysis on these literature reviews as they each represent a unique topic relevant to middle grades education, they were all published within the last two years, and all but one reviewed middle level education literature within a similar and recent timespan (2013–2024). (The outlier is Dever et al., which reviewed literature between 2020 and 2023). Previous research syntheses have examined middle level literature published between 2000 and 2013 (see K. Brinegar, 2015; Yoon et al., 2015); we purposely chose to focus on literature from 2013 to the present. Literature reviews, authors, and dates of publication are included in

Table 1. Literature reviews included in analysis.

Literature Review	Authors	Publication Date
Advancing Middle Grade Research on Critical Pedagogy: Research Synthesis	Amy Walker, Bogum Yoon, and Jennifer Pankowski	11 September 2024
Multimodal Resources and Approaches for Teaching Young Adolescents: A Review of the Literature	Roberta Linder and Francine Falk-Ross	14 September 2024
Online Pedagogies and the Middle Grades: A Scoping Review of the Literature	Brooke Eisenbach and Bridget Coleman	18 September 2024
Middle Level Teacher Development for Advocacy: A Systematic Review of the Literature	Kristie W. Smith, P. Gayle Andrews, and Jessica DeMink-Carthew	5 October 2024
A Systematic Review of Literature on Student Voice and Agency in Middle Grade Contexts	Mary Beth Schaefer, Sarah E. Pennington, Kent Divoll, and Judy H. Tang	25 October 2024
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Middle Level Teacher Development: A Research Synthesis	Ebony Terrell Shockley, Amanda Wall, and Stacie K. Pettit	26 October 2024
Middle-Level Teacher Development and Identity: A Review of the Literature	P. Gayle Andrews and Alyson Leigh Wright	2 November 2024
Middle-Level Teacher Certification/Licensure: Current Status and Future Directions	Robin Dever, Ellis Hurd, Nicole C. Miller, and Nicole Whitaker	27 November 2024
A Framework for Middle Level Curriculum: A Literature Review to Support the Middle Level Education Research Special Interest Group Research Agenda	Christopher Weiler, Steven B. Mertens, James Nagle, Stacie Pettit, and Amanda Wall	29 November 2024
A Scoping Literature Review on Parent Interactions with Teachers and School Environments at the Middle Level	Sarah E. Pennington, Judy H. Tang, Kent Divoll, and Pamela Correll	12 December 2024
Advancing Middle Level Leadership: Middle School Principal Preparation Programs and Approaches to Leadership	Toni M. Williams and W. Keith Burgess	9 January 2025
Understanding Young Adolescent Identity and Experiences Through Internal Dimensions: A Scoping Review	Dezeré J. Martin, Stacie K. Pettit, Sandra L. Stacki, Kristie W. Smith, and Micki M. Caskey	18 February 2025
The Importance of Social and Emotional Skills During Adolescence to Promote a Positive Social Identity: A Systematic Literature Review and Reflection Using Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory	Katherine Main, Bobette D. Bouton, Donna Pendergast, and Nicole Whitaker	19 February 2025

.

To guide our analysis, we applied qualitative content analysis, defined by Hsieh and Shannon (2005) as a “research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278). Specifically, we relied on conventional content analysis (Story & Resnick, 1986) to inductively cluster data into thematic groups using two initial categories: trends and gaps in the literature.

Each researcher independently coded all 13 literature reviews before meeting to establish consensus, a process designed to reduce the reliability concerns common to conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). We brought varied backgrounds as middle level teachers, researchers, and teacher educators as well as diverse regional and social perspectives which informed the coding process.

Analysis proceeded in two stages. First, we generated initial codes related to strengths and gaps within each literature review. These were synthesized into consensus codes using a shared spreadsheet. Second, we examined codes across the texts to identify trends and gaps that appeared in at least three of the reviews. Through iterative discussion and refinement, we developed a final codebook that documented each theme, its definition, the literature reviews in which it appeared, and representative examples.

3. Results

Our qualitative content analysis of 13 literature reviews revealed 7 prominent trends and 7 gaps in education research focusing on middle level and young adolescent learners. We defined trends as themes identified in three or more literature reviews as recurring or prominent features, while gaps were defined as areas, needs, or limitations explicitly named in three or more reviews.

Table 2. Frequency of themes in middle grades education literature reviews.

Trends
Theme	Description	Supporting Articles	Frequency
Criticality and Power Dynamics	Integration of practices that disrupt inequities related to race, privilege, and power.	Main et al., Walker et al., Smith et al., Williams & Burgess	4/13
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Learning	Practices, programs or frameworks that cut across subject area boundaries reflecting integrative tenets of MLE.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Linder & Falk-Ross, Terrell Shockley et al., Weiler et al.	4/13
Middle Level Teacher Identity	Recognition of a specific identity for middle level educators centered on an understanding of and desire to work with young adolescents.	Andrews & Wright, Dever et al., Martin et al., Walker et al., Terrell Shockley et al., Smith et al., Weiler et al., Williams & Burgess	8/13
Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Pedagogy	Recognition of the implementation of culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies as being critical to MLE.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Linder & Falk-Ross, Main et al., Martin et al., Schaefer et al., Smith et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al., Williams & Burgess	9/13
Family and Community Collaboration	Importance of intentional, reciprocal partnerships among schools, families, and communities that support young adolescents.	Main et al., Pennington et al., Smith et al., Weiler et al., Williams & Burgess	5/13
Focus on Young Adolescent Identity	Renewed commitment to honoring the developmental, social, and identity-specific needs of young adolescents.	Andrews & Wright, Dever et al., Linder & Falk-Ross, Main et al., Martin et al., Schaefer et al., Smith et al., Walker et al.	8/13
Qualitative Research Methods	An abundance of qualitative research across some subsections of middle level education research.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Terrell Shockley et al., Smith et al., Weiler et al.	3/13
Gaps
Theme	Description	Supporting Articles	Frequency
Lack of Student Voice and Perspective	Research frequently omits direct input from young adolescents themselves in shaping pedagogy, curriculum, or school climate.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Linder & Falk-Ross, Martin et al., Pennington et al., Schaefer et al., Smith et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al.	8/13
Need for More Diverse Research Methods	Studies often lack long-term follow-up or quantitative validation of interventions and strategies.	Dever et al., Eisenbach & Coleman, Main et al., Pennington et al., Terrell Shockley et al., Smith et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al., Williams & Burgess	9/13
Limited Focus on Diverse Perspectives and Identities	Underrepresentation of students with disabilities, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ youth, multilingual learners, and others.	Andrews & Wright, Dever et al., Eisenbach & Coleman, Main et al., Martin et al., Pennington et al., Terrell Shockley et al., Smith et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al.	10/13
Absence of Practical Frameworks	Research often identifies promising practices but fails to offer clear, replicable models or instructional frameworks.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Linder & Falk-Ross, Pennington et al., Smith et al., Walker et al.	5/13
Incomplete Teacher Preparation	Gaps in how teacher education programs prepare candidates to enact equitable, interdisciplinary, and student-centered teaching.	Andrews & Wright, Dever et al., Eisenbach & Coleman, Terrell Shockley et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al.	6/13
Weak Integration of Technology, AI, and Digital Learning	Minimal focus on how emerging tech affects curriculum, instruction, and school–family communication.	Eisenbach & Coleman, Pennington et al., Terrell Shockley et al., Weiler et al.	4/13
Middle Level-Specific Research Needed	Insufficient research explicitly designed for middle level education contexts and philosophy.	Andrews & Wright, Dever et al., Eisenbach & Coleman, Linder & Falk-Ross, Main et al., Pennington et al., Walker et al., Weiler et al., Williams & Burgess	9/13

shares frequency data for each theme.

3.1. Trends

3.1.1. Criticality and Power Dynamics

Across the reviewed articles from the Education Sciences Special Issue, we identified criticality and power dynamics as a significant theme in extant middle level education texts from 4 of the 13 articles. This code highlights the integration of educational practices that disrupt inequities related to race, privilege, and power, particularly with decolonial and antiracist strategies, transformative social and emotional learning, and critical pedagogies.

Several studies emphasized the importance of preparing teachers not only as content specialists but also as equity-oriented practitioners. The reviews highlighted how critical pedagogies were used to foster collaboration, increase student engagement, and confront traditional power dynamics in classrooms and schools. Walker et al. (2024) shared that “classrooms across the content areas implemented a variety of instructional practices, with the goal of confronting power dynamics and encouraging student participation in community engagement and sociopolitical issues” (p. 5). Examples included role-playing, critical multimodal hip hop productions, and student-designed classroom environments. Each of the practices included explicit commitments to equity within principal preparation programs and teacher development pathways.

At the same time, we noted a trend of significant barriers to enacting critical pedagogies. These barriers included institutional constraints, resistance to change, and a lack of teacher preparation and training. For example, Smith et al. (2024) stated that social justice teacher education is very complex and there exists a need “for continuous striving around curricula to support teachers’ advocacy competencies” (p. 9). This underscores the tension between aspirational goals of justice-oriented education and the limitations of teacher preparation structures.

Notably, there was a growing call in the literature for a shift from traditional social–emotional learning (SEL) to transformative SEL. Transformative SEL is intentionally designed to address power, privilege, prejudice, and social justice. Main et al. (2025) outlined research questions related to transformative SEL, asking specifically, “How effective are transformative SEL programs, which incorporate equity, social justice, and systemic awareness, in supporting the identity development of marginalized adolescents” (p. 19)? Their findings and research questions reinforced the importance of preparing educators to critically examine and resist inequitable systems, rather than simply accommodating them.

3.1.2. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Learning

A second trend, which appeared in 4 of the 13 articles, is an emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to learning. This trend considered practices, programs, and frameworks that, while not always explicitly labeled interdisciplinary, connected subject areas in ways that reflected the integrative tenets of middle level education. Studies across contexts highlighted the growing use of project-based learning, digital storytelling, and arts integration as tools to support deeper engagement and identity development for young adolescents (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024; Linder & Falk-Ross, 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024). For the purposes of our analysis we defined interdisciplinary approaches as curricular and instructional designs that intentionally connect multiple content areas to promote deeper understanding, real-world relevance, and greater engagement. Within the broader theme of interdisciplinary approaches to learning three sub-themes emerged: the integration of multimodal and innovative methods, the importance of literacy-based skills across multiple areas of middle level teaching and learning, and the ways that middle level structures have power to influence curriculum and instruction.

The integration of multimodal and innovative instructional methods was prominent within this theme. Linder and Falk-Ross (2024) described how across the literature, middle level classrooms increasingly embraced multimodal instruction. Throughout the data set, authors described a wide range of multimodal inputs and outputs: visual media, podcasts, student-created videos, maps, sketches, artwork, graphic novels, and the use of online and hybrid instruction. These methods were typically framed as tools to increase engagement, support diverse learners, and offer students multiple ways to express their understanding.

Another pattern in this subtheme included the integration of arts and social–emotional learning into core content areas. Weiler et al. (2024) found that integration occurred between a core academic subject and either the arts or social–emotional learning, rather than across multiple core subjects, as is traditionally emphasized in research on curriculum integration.

Literacy-based instruction in the language arts classroom and across content areas was also a clear theme across multiple papers. Linder and Falk-Ross (2024) found that multimodal pedagogy, which involves a variety of text formats, has been shown to positively impact students’ language and literacy development and “enhance their engagement and learning in content area classes” (p. 6). Similarly, Weiler et al. (2024) noted a consistent trend toward literacy integration, finding that recent literature focused on how content literacy and disciplinary literacy elevate content-area knowledge and skills. The review highlighted various strategies, such as using paired texts to make connections across subject areas and incorporating visual arts to close read texts.

Lastly, but importantly, the influence middle level structures have on the ways that curriculum is enacted was seen in multiple papers. Weiler et al. (2024) suggested that the presence of structures like teaming makes the use of interdisciplinary approaches to learning more likely, as these teams provide a flexible foundation to organize teachers and students to facilitate integrated curriculum and instruction. This finding was supported by Terrell Shockley et al. (2024), who observed that numerous research articles in their review pointed to evidence that teaming, regardless of its specific form, can support instruction for both young adolescents and teacher candidates. These findings highlight how foundational middle-level structures are central to the pedagogical and curricular practices within the field.

3.1.3. Middle Level Teacher Identity

Across the articles, another significant trend was the importance of middle level educators’ identity in supporting the growth and development of young adolescents. We identified this trend in 8 of the 13 articles. Articles described how this was significant given the complexity of early adolescence and the myriad changes occurring during this developmental period. In their literature review on middle level teacher development and identity, Andrews and Wright (2024) described teacher identity development as being “comprised of multiple sub-identities” that are “fluid, dynamic, and complex” (p. 10).

Across multiple literature reviews, middle level educator identity was described as being centered on three components, (a) passion for working with this specific age group, (b) strong knowledge of developmental trends (physical, emotional, social, and cognitive) and, (c) awareness of the salience of social identity development leading up to and throughout early adolescence (Dever et al., 2024; Martin et al., 2025; Williams & Burgess, 2025). Andrews and Wright (2024) noted a connection between middle level educator identity and retention and job satisfaction, with educators who see themselves as middle level specialists more likely to stay in the profession.

Many of the articles noted that middle level teacher identity requires educators and administrators to be developmentally responsive and culturally responsive (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024; Williams & Burgess, 2025) as teacher identity, positionality, and implicit bias impact teaching and learning and student–teacher relationships (Smith et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024). This requires cultivating a middle level educator identity centered in an awareness of implicit bias, understanding one’s own positionality, and adopting socially just pedagogies. In their literature review on critical pedagogies, Walker et al. (2024) found that teachers’ racial positionality influenced their decision-making processes, and Weiler et al. (2024) noted that research found a disproportionate number of White teachers served as barriers to anti-racist curriculum development. Weiler et al. (2024) attributed this to the teachers’ underdeveloped understanding of social justice, which influenced their ability to create authentically anti-racist curricula or adequately critique existing curricular resources. Similarly, Martin et al.’s (2025) review of middle level literature related to young adolescent identity discussed the misalignment between educators’ perceptions of LGBTQ+ students and the students’ self-reported experiences. This disconnect often resulted in educators’ enactment of heteronormativity.

Andrews and Wright (2024) stressed that being a change agent is a critical component of middle level teacher identity and Smith et al. (2024) called for all middle level educators to develop an advocate identity. They described research that emphasized the importance of teacher advocacy in fostering socially just and equitable middle school environments. Given this, Smith et al. (2024) cited multiple studies highlighting the need for intentionality in middle level teacher development practice to support the development of an advocate identity, centered on the development of critical consciousness.

The research across these literature reviews points to a need for ongoing support for teachers to develop strong, reflective identities as equity-oriented advocates for young adolescents. Andrews and Wright (2024) highlighted three practices from the research literature on middle level teacher development and identity needed to achieve and sustain this type of educator identity: mentoring, reflective practice, and participation in a professional learning community.

3.1.4. Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Pedagogy

Nine of the reviews described the implementation of culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies as being critical to middle level curriculum and instruction for young adolescents. This included a call for a curriculum that is informed by and responsive to the sociopolitical environment, youth realities, and current social movements, as well as the use of instructional methods that affirm, incorporate, and build upon students’ cultural, linguistic, and community identities. The articles described how such pedagogies are connected to broader goals of equity, justice, and engagement and often include inquiry-based, collaborative, and place-based learning experiences. An emphasis across the articles was placed on engaging young adolescent learners as active participants through inquiry, reflection, and problem-solving.

Curricularly, multiple articles described how empowering curriculum gave young adolescents the opportunity to explore their identities, engage in self-expression, and explore social issues (Linder & Falk-Ross, 2024; Schaefer et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024). According to Walker et al. (2024):

the use of culturally responsive pedagogies demonstrated a far-reaching strategy that supports the academic progress of a diverse student population in the middle grades; often, the use of multiple strategies in combination allows for increased motivation and academic skill growth for students across multiple representations of diversity.

(p. 7)

Involving young adolescents in the process of curriculum development itself was cited by Weiler et al. (2024) as an important strategy for making sure that curriculum was more relevant to students’ lives and that it drew on students’ assets. They also noted that student engagement increased when the curriculum was rooted in social justice.

In terms of culturally sustaining instructional strategies, Smith et al. (2024) noted how strategies aligned with students’ cultural and social identities fostered both engagement and academic success, while Walker et al. (2024) described inquiry-based learning and cooperative learning as strategies that upended power dynamics and increased achievement. Linder and Falk-Ross (2024) explained how codemeshing and translanguaging were effective strategies for enabling multilingual learners to participate actively in higher-level academic work while enhancing their communication skills. Smith et al. (2024) described critical service-learning as an instructional pedagogy useful in developing social justice advocacy skills. In addition, Walker et al. (2024) found that decolonial and antiracist strategies lead to more open dialogue around racism, bias, and prejudice in middle grades classrooms, and Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) highlighted the use of culturally responsive teaching in online learning environments for middle level learners.

Despite a consensus across the articles that culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies are critical to young adolescent learning, many articles also described the challenges of implementing culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies in middle level classrooms. For example, Weiler et al. (2024) described how sociopolitical context influences what is taught and how it is taught. They noted how the COVID-19 pandemic; discourse around diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice; local politics; and standards and high-stakes testing all had a large influence on curriculum and pedagogy across various middle schools. Similarly, Walker et al. (2024) noted that institutional constraints, lack of training, and resistance to change made the implementation of critical pedagogies such as culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy challenging for middle level educators.

Despite the challenges, the integration of such critical pedagogies can notably enhance the schooling experiences of middle level students by confronting power imbalances and centering diverse perspectives and voices.

3.1.5. Family and Community Collaboration

Family and community collaboration was also a recurring theme across five of the reviewed articles. In our analysis we defined family and community collaboration as the importance of intentional, reciprocal partnerships between schools, families, and communities that support the academic, social, and emotional development of young adolescents. Rather than positioning families as passive recipients or occasional participants, the reviewed literature emphasized collaboration as an essential component of both teacher preparation and school leadership development (Main et al., 2025; Pennington et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024; Williams & Burgess, 2025).

Smith et al. (2024) highlighted the role of critical service-learning as a tool for fostering student advocacy and civic engagement. Citing work from Andrews and Leonard (2018), they described how real-world projects rooted in community needs can deepen both content understanding and community connection. This approach repositions community collaboration not just as a support mechanism, but as a transformative educational practice.

University–school partnerships were also cited as a key mechanism for bridging theory and practice–particularly within principal preparation programs and community-engaged teacher education models. Weiler et al. (2024) found that university and school partnerships were shown to be effective in expanding educators’ understanding of local contexts, strengthening professional learning, and building equity-focused leadership capacity.

Despite the emphasis on collaboration, several reviews implicitly point to gaps in how consistently these practices are embedded in preparation programs. The field still needs more research on how pre-service educators are equipped to develop authentic relationships with families and navigate cultural mismatches that often exist between schools and communities.

3.1.6. Focus on Young Adolescent Identity

A renewed commitment to honoring the developmental, social, and identity-specific needs of young adolescents was a clear throughline across the reviewed articles. This theme was identified in 8 of the 13 articles. The literature reviewed recognized early adolescence as a distinct and critical life stage, requiring educators to adopt responsive pedagogies that consider identity development, including centering student voice, and considering cultural context. Multiple papers underscored the importance of educators having specialized knowledge and skills for working with young adolescents, including an understanding of the fluid and intersectional nature of young adolescent identity formation (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Main et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024). Research highlighted the ways that young adolescents navigate race, ethnicity, gender, and other social categories during the middle years, often in the face of structural inequities.

Student agency also emerged as a key theme. Young adolescents were described not only as learners but as collaborators and co-constructors of meaning, with several reviews elevating practices like student-led research (Main et al., 2025), reflective writing (Schaefer et al., 2024), and action-based learning to support self-expression and critical thinking (Martin et al., 2025; Schaefer et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024).

Finally, the field is increasingly acknowledging that middle level identity work must address societal power dynamics, especially around race and equity. Young adolescents were shown to be particularly vulnerable to racialized experiences, making it essential for instruction and school culture to affirm and respond to these realities (Martin et al., 2025; Schaefer et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024).

3.1.7. Qualitative Research Methods

As a methodology that provides in-depth, human-centered insights into complex social phenomena, qualitative research is uniquely suited to surface student and teacher perspectives, examine context, and generate theory from practice (Lim, 2025). Three papers in this analysis noted the abundance of qualitative studies across their subsection of middle level education research (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024, Smith et al., 2024, Weiler et al., 2024). For example, the Smith et al. (2024) paper revealed that 27 out of the 38 articles (71%) that they analyzed on teacher development for advocacy were qualitative. Their review highlighted varying approaches to qualitative work, such as ethnographic studies, case studies, multi-case studies, phenomenological research, and life history studies. This finding was consistent with other groups. Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) discussed the use of case studies, phenomenological studies, and narrative studies, while Weiler et al. (2024) identified ethnographic and case studies as highly utilized methods.

3.2. Gaps

3.2.1. Lack of Student Voice and Perspective

Across eight articles, a significant and recurring gap was the absence of young adolescents’ voices in research that seeks to understand or improve their educational experiences. Despite calls for student-centered pedagogy and responsive practices, many studies still relied heavily on adult perspectives (e.g., teachers, administrators, or researchers) without incorporating students’ lived experiences, insights, or reflections.

This gap is particularly evident in studies focused on social justice, critical pedagogy, and home-school-community partnerships, where middle level students’ perspectives are essential yet frequently omitted. Walker et al. (2024), in describing critical pedagogy-related research gaps, wrote that “middle-grades students’ voices are equally important for a fuller picture of critical pedagogy” (p. 8). Several reviews noted that while research aims to advance equity or responsiveness, it rarely includes direct input from young adolescents, especially regarding how they experience curriculum, teaching strategies, and school climate (Martin et al., 2025; Schaefer et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024) For example, Weiler et al. (2024) noted that “student voices about curricula are missing and needed for data collection for this area of research” (p. 15).

Additionally, the absence of student perspectives undermines the transformative goals of equity work. Walker et al. (2024) found that teacher reflections are emphasized, while students’ experiences navigating advocacy, identity formation, and resistance remained under-documented in the literature. Schaefer et al. (2024) described “missed opportunit[ies] for practice and a gap in the literature” (p. 10), including opportunities for students to provide feedback as collaborators, not as passive providers of perspectives.

Martin et al. (2025), speaking broadly on middle level research, said “we rarely find the voices of young adolescents evident in the research literature” (p. 21). This gap suggests a pressing need for middle level researchers to engage students more intentionally as co-researchers, participants, and informants, especially when the work claims to be youth-responsive or justice-oriented.

3.2.2. Need for More Diverse Research Methods

Qualitative research methods were a prevalent and central approach across the literature reviewed. Nine of the papers in this analysis, including those that recognized the contributions of a variety of qualitative research, also acknowledged that there might be an over-reliance on certain qualitative methods in the field. The primary gaps that were repeated across papers were the lack of longitudinal studies and larger-scale or multisite projects. Authors specifically called for research employing quantitative or mixed methods designs to complement the existing body of work.

For instance, several papers noted a lack of long-term follow-up or quantitative validation of interventions and strategies. They highlighted how the dominance of smaller-scale, context-specific studies, while insightful, limits the ability to explore how findings might be replicated or scaled across diverse contexts. Weiler et al. (2024) called for more research that includes multiple sites, expanded data sources, and a greater number of participants to increase the generalizability of findings. For example, Smith et al. (2024) noted that the concentration of research in the southeastern United States raises questions about the transferability of findings across different geopolitical contexts. Similarly, Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) advocated for collaborations among researchers across different programs and institutions to investigate curriculum and instruction more broadly. Other authors called for a greater variety of data types, such as survey research and focus groups, to understand how findings might apply across school settings and for specific student groups (Pennington et al., 2024).

3.2.3. Limited Focus on Diverse Perspectives and Identities

Another significant gap identified across 10 of the literature reviews was the limited focus on diverse perspectives and identities. This includes those of young adolescents themselves as well as educators and parents/caregivers. According to Eisenbach and Coleman (2024), a clear gap in middle level research is the “lack of emphasis on research involving diverse populations or clarity surrounding the diversity of the populations selected to participate in the research” (p. 16).

Specifically, Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) recognized that the underrepresentation of students includes those with (dis)abilities or neurodivergence, gifted students, students with minoritized racial and ethnic identities, LGBTQ+ youth, and multilingual learners. On race and ethnicity, Martin et al. (2025) found that more research was needed to amplify the voices of young adolescents to present narratives counter to the harmful narratives perpetuated in research. They also cited the need for further research into how students with (dis)abilities navigate identity development, particularly as it relates to peer interactions and school participation. Main et al. (2025) called for researchers to be more explicit in considering how factors such as race and sexual orientation influence identity development for young adolescents.

Similarly, Andrews and Wright (2024) noted the lack of focus on marginalized teacher identities, including first-generation college graduates, LGBTQ+ educators, and multilingual educators. They stated that middle level research needs to “delve deeper into the varying sub-identities of middle grades teachers in order to understand how to best support their practice” (p. 11). They specifically discuss assessment identity and how teachers’ identities can influence their approach to assessment. This connects to Terrell Shockley et al. (2024)’s finding that limited studies described how culturally sustaining, relevant, and responsive pedagogies are used in middle level teacher preparation programs. Pennington et al. (2024) referenced the need to broaden the diverse cultural contexts of research related to parents and caregivers to more intentionally include how factors such as race, language, socioeconomic status, and geographic location influence parent and caregiver involvement in middle schools.

Given Dever et al.’s (2024) call to better understand how to better recruit and retain middle level educators from underrepresented populations, diversifying the perspectives and participants in middle level research feels particularly important.

3.2.4. Absence of Practical Frameworks

Our analysis of the literature reviews found that middle level research often identifies promising practices for supporting teaching and learning, but does not offer clear, replicable models or instructional frameworks for implementation in middle level classrooms. All five literature reviews that identified this trend called for explicit frameworks in the area related to their literature review. Walker et al. (2024) noted that there were more studies on how practices were applied in teacher education than on their actual application in the middle level classroom. Smith et al. (2024) pointed out that actionable and context-specific frameworks are needed to guide educators in implementing advocacy-focused and social justice-oriented teaching practices effectively. In the same vein, Walker et al. (2024) described the need for clear instructional frameworks grounded in critical pedagogies. Additionally, Linder and Falk-Ross (2024) cited a lack of specific research related to middle level special education and multimodal resources and approaches, and Pennington et al. (2024), in their literature review on parent interactions, highlighted the limited research tracking the long-term impact of parent–teacher relationships on student success. Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) pointed out that this lack of middle level specific frameworks, as it relates to online pedagogies, can stem from “research involving participants and settings in higher education, despite the distinct differences in the effective instruction of adults compared to adolescent learners” (p. 3).

3.2.5. Incomplete Teacher Preparation

Six of the papers in the sample addressed what we label incomplete teacher preparation. This refers to stated gaps in the literature that reveal an incomplete understanding of how teacher candidates are prepared for middle level practice. According to these six literature reviews, there is a fragmented approach to research on teacher preparation and gaps in how middle level teacher preparation programs address particular aspects of practice.

Several authors called attention to the lack of studies situated in middle level teacher education settings. Andrews and Wright (2024) noted that despite the importance of teacher identity development in educational research, there remains a notable lack of focus on middle-level educators, who work with a unique student population during a critical developmental period. Their review highlights that most scholarship centers on primary and secondary teachers, leaving a gap in understanding how middle-level educators navigate identity formation and teaming across career stages. Andrews and Wright (2024) called for more research specifically examining professional identity development within middle level contexts.

Other gaps relate to specific areas of preparation. Weiler et al. (2024) emphasized that more research is needed on how teacher education programs prepare educators to develop and critique curriculum. Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) noted that teacher preparation research is under-resourced around assessment, particularly regarding how candidates learn to design valid and reliable assessments and diversify assessment techniques for middle level learners. Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) similarly pointed to limited studies examining how culturally responsive pedagogies are used in teacher preparation. Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) identified insufficient attention to preparing educators for online instruction, arguing that future trends should prioritize educator preparation in online pedagogies to meet the developmental needs of young adolescents. These authors identify pedagogical preparation as an understudied area of middle level teacher education.

3.2.6. Weak Integration of Technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Digital Learning

Despite the increasing ubiquity of digital tools and AI in schools and society, middle level education research continues to show a limited engagement with technology-related themes, especially in relation to curriculum design, instructional practice, and family–school communication, with 4 of the 13 articles identifying this gap. Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) noted the growth of technology-focused schools and education research following the COVID-19 pandemic. They also documented how middle level venues have not seen that same growth. Multiple articles identified a minimal focus on how emerging technologies, particularly AI and social media, are shaping classroom experiences, teacher decision-making, and student learning (Pennington et al., 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024).

Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) found that K–12-specific guidance for online and hybrid instruction is often extrapolated from higher education contexts that do not fully align with the developmental and social needs of young adolescents. Additionally, studies rarely addressed how policy shifts or legislation related to digital learning and AI are influencing classroom practices or educator preparation (Terrell Shockley et al., 2024).

Middle level education research also overlooks how technology intersects with parent-school communication, especially as digital platforms become primary vehicles for engagement. Pennington et al. (2024) documented the “challenge that teachers and schools face is supporting the involvement of families from diverse communities” (p. 3). Multiple authors called for more focused inquiry into how digital tools, AI, and social media affect student agency, classroom culture, and equity (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024; Pennington et al., 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024).

Collectively, these omissions point to a growing need for middle level researchers to investigate the pedagogical, ethical, and relational implications of digital learning. Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) described the need for research responsive to context that includes a focus on local and global issues such as how political discourse impacts “households, policies, and schools and how middle level educators and teacher educators navigate those classrooms” (p. 12). Continuing work on contemporary issues is needed to demonstrate how educators apply frameworks for curriculum, instruction, and assessment in evolving contexts.

3.2.7. More Middle Level-Specific Research Needed

Across the 13 literature reviews, authors consistently identified the scarcity of research explicitly focused on middle level contexts as a concern. In 9 of the 13 articles, authors noted that while studies included young adolescents or middle level settings, few were designed with middle level philosophy as the theoretical foundation or disaggregated findings specific to the developmental needs of this age group. Authors identified an absence of middle level-specific terminology and theoretical grounding in existing research. For example, Williams and Burgess (2025) noted, in their review on middle level leadership, that there were a lack of middle school specific credentialing or leadership terminology and limited research explicitly connected to foundational documents like This We Believe, or the Successful Middle School. In some cases authors noted that middle level students were present in studies, but not centered (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024; Walker et al., 2024). Studies frequently treated middle level students as convenient samples rather than centering their unique developmental characteristics or the organizational structures designed to serve them (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024; Williams & Burgess, 2025).

This gap was particularly pronounced in specialized areas. Reviews found insufficient research on middle level special education approaches (Linder & Falk-Ross, 2024; Walker et al., 2024), limited focus on middle level administrator preparation and practice (Williams & Burgess, 2025), and limited scholarship on middle level teacher professional identity development (Andrews & Wright, 2024). Online learning research exemplified this pattern, with “strategies for K-12 online teaching often stem[ming] from research involving participants and settings in higher education, despite the distinct differences in the effective instruction of adults compared to adolescent learners” (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024, p. 2). This pattern suggests that middle level education continues to struggle for recognition as a distinct field requiring specialized research approaches. The absence of middle level-specific research limits the field’s ability to develop evidence-based practices that align with its philosophical commitments to developmentally responsive education for young adolescents.

4. Discussion

The trends and gaps identified in this content analysis should be interpreted within the broader context of significant shifts occurring within middle level education. In recent years the Association for Middle Level Education has revised their germinal position paper (see Bishop & Harrison, 2021) and developed a revised set of teacher preparation standards (see Association for Middle Level Education, 2022) to center equity and culturally sustaining pedagogies. The MLER SIG has also issued a new research agenda (K. Brinegar et al., 2024), with the goal of shaping new scholarship across the field. Simultaneously, the COVID-19 pandemic, the politicization of curriculum, and rising attacks on public education have created challenges and urgency across the educational landscape, with particular implications for the education of young adolescent learners.

While our analysis identified 7 trends and 7 gaps across the 13 literature reviews, this discussion considers how these patterns fit into broader themes that speak to the trajectory of research within the field of middle grades education. Specifically we found promising developments in the field’s attention to equity, identity, and developmentally responsive practices, and disconnects between the field’s research aspirations and current methodological approaches.

4.1. Equity, Identity, and Developmentally Responsive Practices

A look at the trends and the gaps identified in our analysis reveal a field increasingly oriented toward equity, justice, and responsiveness to young adolescent development. This is a shift from previous critiques of the field, where scholars pointed out the colorblind and whitewashed approaches to middle level research (see K. Brinegar, 2015; Harrison et al., 2019; and Busey & Gainer, 2022, for examples).

4.1.1. Equity Focus

The prominence of criticality and power dynamics across reviews suggests that middle level education is starting to take up its role in addressing systemic inequities, moving beyond traditional approaches to actively confront racism, privilege, and power imbalances. Our analysis revealed growing calls for transformative approaches that directly address power and privilege such as transformative social–emotional learning (Main et al., 2025), decolonial and antiracist pedagogies (Walker et al., 2024), and the development of advocate identities among teachers (Smith et al., 2024).

Yet, these aspirational goals face unprecedented legislative obstacles that may impact how these calls are answered beyond this agenda. Laws like federal certification requirements threatening Title I funding for schools that maintain DEI programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2025), Iowa’s Senate File 2435 banning the promotion of concepts including antiracism and systemic oppression in higher education institutions that prepare teachers (Luu & Sostaric, 2025), Texas’s proposed legislation preventing schools from developing policies or training that reference race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation (Méndez, 2025), and New Hampshire’s anti-DEI law, effective 1 July 2025, restricting diversity training in public schools and universities (Moore, 2025) impact public Pre-K-12 schools as well as teacher preparation programs. Recent incidents, such as the termination of teacher educators for addressing gender diversity in the literature (Priest et al., 2025), that are a direct result of such legislation, underscore the complex sociopolitical barriers that threaten progress in equity-centered teacher preparation, classroom practices, and in turn a broader citizenry.

Analysis of the literature reviews from the 2024 research agenda reveals that the field is facing a critical paradox where just as it has responded to critiques of color blindness (K. Brinegar, 2015; Harrison et al., 2019) and started to answer calls about equity centered approaches to education (Main et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024), legislative and political pressures are being applied that make these practices if not illegal, at the very least controversial and cumbersome as teacher educators and administrators jump through legislative hoops to obtain permissions, seek guidance, and adjust language to align with state statutes. Unlike the early challenges that plagued the scholarly work of middle level academics, such as proving the need for specific education for young adolescents (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2003), responding to calls about middle schooling not being academic or rigorous enough (Meyer, 2011; Yecke, 2006), and the fight for specialized teacher preparation (Howell et al., 2016), the call to move forward with equity-focused work is not just being dismissed but actively oppressed and weaponized. Trends from the 2024 research agenda show a field that longs to move beyond scholarship to actual classroom practice and broader educational transformation as they simultaneously face real challenges navigating the continued scrutiny on higher education and public schooling.

The commitment to navigate these sociopolitical barriers speaks to the need for continued scholarly attention. In response to these barriers researchers need to not only continue to find ways to confront racism, privilege, and power imbalances in their own teaching and in their research but should also pay attention to the impact on middle schools and young adolescents when these equity focused practices are not being introduced in teacher preparation or professional development. What are both the short-term and the long-term consequences for schools, for students, and for the field as a whole?

4.1.2. Identity

Our analysis revealed that identity development for middle level educators and the young adolescents that they teach, as well as a need to increase the identity and profile of the middle level field itself, are central concerns. The focus on middle level teacher identity as a distinct construct addresses a persistent challenge in the field: the lack of recognition of middle level as a specialized area requiring specific preparation and expertise (Howell et al., 2016), despite calls for specialized middle level teacher preparation starting in the 1960s (see Dever et al., 2024). In early editions of This We Believe (National Middle School Association, 1995, 2003, 2010), it was emphasized that “Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them” (National Middle School Association, 2010, p. 15). The sentiment carries into the most recent edition of the position paper with Bishop and Harrison (2021) stating “Effective middle grades teachers and administrators are specifically prepared to work with and advocate for young adolescents through specialized middle grades teacher preparation” (p. 25).

Despite decades of advocacy, ongoing challenges due to shifting licensure requirements across states make highlighting the need for specialized middle level preparation, a key tenet of middle level education, more important than ever (Dever et al., 2024). In their review, Andrews and Wright (2024) described a connection between middle level identity and retention, suggesting that it is not merely philosophical but has practical implications for addressing teacher shortages in the middle grades. This is important when taken together with Dever et al.’s (2024) review, which documented how “there has been a decline in students enrolled in teacher education programs since 2012/2013, in which the number of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs has decreased 30.8%,” (p. 9). Dever et al. (2024) also noted that the teacher shortage is compounded by the fact that “half of all teachers leave the profession within the first year” (p. 11). This dual crisis of fewer teachers entering the profession and high attrition rates exacerbates the shortage of educators specifically prepared to serve middle level students.

Challenges surrounding professional recognition extend beyond licensure to the research base that informs middle level practices. We see that across the 13 literature reviews, authors consistently identified the scarcity of research explicitly focused on middle level contexts, noting that while studies included young adolescents or middle level settings, few were designed with the middle level philosophy as the theoretical foundation. At one time this omission could be attributed to a lack of criticality or cultural responsiveness in the middle grades philosophy, but as these literature reviews revealed, the field has pivoted to address these concerns. The same challenges around recognition are evident in the erosion of specialized licensure requirements, revealing a persistent cycle: without research that centers young adolescents’ unique developmental characteristics, the field lacks the evidence base needed to advocate for specialized preparation.

This research recognition problem compounds when examining identity development specifically. While middle level education increasingly emphasizes identity-affirming pedagogies, we lack a research base on the diverse populations that these pedagogies are meant to serve. This is problematic given that the middle years are when young adolescents are most engaged in identity exploration across multiple domains (i.e., racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, and ability) (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Main et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024).

In looking at identity across this analysis, we see a field that is still holding onto recognition as a distinct professional field (although limited licensure requirements and specific middle level population in research are starting to threaten this) while also acknowledging that the research to date does not recognize the full diversity within its own community. Just as the field advocates for young adolescents as a unique population, it must also recognize the diversity within that population and within its educator workforce. Given the alarming decline in teacher preparation enrollment and first-year attrition rates, research should also examine what recruitment and retention strategies effectively draw and keep educators committed to middle level teaching, particularly those prepared to engage in identity-affirming work with diverse young adolescents.

4.1.3. Developmentally Responsive Practices

Our analysis revealed that the field is reconceptualizing what developmentally responsive practice means in contemporary contexts, suggesting that even core middle level principles continue to evolve. For example, an emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches aligns with foundational middle level philosophy that views young adolescents as needing integrated, relevant learning experiences (Bishop & Harrison, 2021; National Middle School Association, 2010) However, Weiler et al.’s (2024) finding that integration frequently occurs between core subjects and arts or SEL, rather than across multiple core subjects, suggests an evolution in how we conceptualize curriculum integration. It seems that for many modern middle schools, integration does not have to be content specific but rather includes social–emotional and identity development as well as a desire to foster creativity. This shift may reflect practical constraints that schools face when implementing these practices (Weiler et al., 2024) or represent a more holistic understanding of young adolescent needs that encompasses emotional and creative development alongside academic learning (Linder & Falk-Ross, 2024; Schaefer et al., 2024; Weiler et al., 2024). In addition, the emphasis on SEL integration may reflect broader educational trends, including increased attention to social–emotional needs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (see Brandon, 2021) and middle level educators explicitly calling for curricula that center students’ emotional and academic needs. As Bishop and Harrison (2021) emphasized, “the curriculum encompasses not only the classes designed to advance specific skills and knowledge but also school-wide services and programs such as guidance, clubs and interest groups, music and drama productions, student government, service activities, and sports” (p. 27).

These findings on integration are closely related to how middle level structures influence the ways that curriculum is enacted. Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) pointed to the use of key middle level education structures, such as teaming, as conduits to interdisciplinary approaches. This supports the notion that middle level education practices are intertwined and suggests that scholars should consider how key structures and practices considered central to the middle level education model are being implemented across middle schools (in the United States and globally) in modern-day contexts. This aligns with Weiler et al.’s (2024) suggestion that if middle level education structures such as teaming are in place, they are more likely to support interdisciplinary approaches to learning. They noted that a team structure can provide a flexible foundation for organizing teachers and students to facilitate integrated curriculum and instruction. However, Terrell Shockley et al. (2024) also noted that there is a wide variety in how teaming is implemented despite the fact that research based middle school recognition programs like AMLE’s Schools of Distinction and the National Forum’s Schools to Watch use traditional definitions of teaming as being “teams of two to five teachers representing the core subjects [who] share the same schedule, students, area of the building, responsibility for core courses, and have common planning time” (Association for Middle Level Education, n.d., para. 1). Exploring contemporary teaming structures could reveal how schools are adapting traditional practices while maintaining developmentally responsive goals set forth by germinal middle level publications (see Bishop & Harrison, 2021; National Middle School Association, 2010; Jackson & Davis, 2000).

Other key middle practices discussed in the reviews include school–caregiver relationships and identity exploration. Pennington et al. (2024) conducted an extensive review of literature focused on parent–teacher interactions at the middle level. They explained that while the current literature continues to advocate for strong parent–teacher interactions, areas of research, including our understanding of how to integrate successful communication between home and school, continue to be underdeveloped as communication tools and preferences shift rapidly in our current culture. They also asserted that current literature highlights a gap in perceptions of middle school between families and teachers. More research is needed to understand this gap across diverse contexts. When it comes to identity exploration, the emphasis on young adolescent identity development across eight reviews reflects the field’s continued commitment to practices that support identity exploration (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Dever et al., 2024; Linder & Falk-Ross, 2024; Main et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025; Schaefer et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2024), a key practice in middle level schooling. The move to more equity-focused and culturally responsive understandings of identity represents a shift that supports the notion that the field is evolving. Given the ways that the shifting landscape has impacted these core middle level education practices, it feels important to take up Harrison et al.’s (2019) call to revisit elements of the middle grades concept to understand how they can evolve to meet current needs.

The lack of literature on technology and AI in middle level education research is also notable when considering developmentally responsive practices. As digital tools become central to young adolescents’ lives as well as key pedagogical tools in middle level classrooms, our limited view of this leaves a gap in the field’s understanding of how to best support digital literacies and how to develop online identities in ways that are developmentally and culturally responsive (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024; Pennington et al., 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024). Young adolescents’ physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development raises critical questions about how their interactions with AI and digital technologies will impact and be impacted by this rapid and expansive development. Eisenbach and Coleman (2024) reminded us that guidance for online and hybrid instruction is often extrapolated from higher education contexts rather than grounded in young adolescent development (Eisenbach & Coleman, 2024), leaving a pressing need to better understand this intersection. The field would benefit from research addressing critical questions around young adolescent youths’ and their use of AI, as well as the role of AI in instruction and assessment through the lens of developmental and cultural responsiveness. Without this research, middle level education risks adopting technologies that undermine core values of developmental responsiveness or failing to prepare young adolescents for the digital realities that will shape their futures.

The capacity to adapt its foundational principles to current realities suggests that middle level education may be positioned to maintain its developmental focus while responding to increasingly complex student needs, changing public education landscapes, and intense scrutiny on the field.

4.2. Research Aspirations and Current Methodological Approaches

Despite the field’s commitment to responsive, equity-centered practices, a disconnect exists between the stated aspirational goals of the field and current methodological practices. While researchers advocate for culturally sustaining pedagogies and justice-oriented practices, our analysis reveals some critical gaps identified across the literature reviews that can undermine the efforts being made in this area: (a) the exclusion of young adolescent voices from research designed to serve them, (b) calls for methodological diversity, and (c) a lack of diverse participants in studies focused on middle level education, particularly studies focused on equity and identity development.

4.2.1. Student Voice

In a field committed to being student-centered, the absence of student voice and the gap in the research around specifically young adolescent experiences speak volumes. Our analysis revealed that 8 of the 13 literature reviews commented on this lack of young adolescent voice in the research they reviewed. In the trends we noted a clear commitment to honoring the developmental, social, and identity-specific needs of young adolescents through practices like culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies, yet it does not appear that researchers and scholars are engaging young people directly in these conversations. This raises critical questions about the methodological assumptions embedded within educational research, while also identifying possible structural obstacles that make such research impractical or difficult to include young adolescents in these conversations.

In research focused on social justice, the omission of student perspectives risks reinforcing the very power imbalances that critical pedagogies are designed to dismantle. For instance, Walker et al. (2024) and Weiler et al. (2024) both highlighted this critical omission, noting that students’ perspectives are “equally important for a fuller picture of critical pedagogy” (Walker et al., 2024, p. 8) and are “missing and needed for data collection for this area of research” (Weiler et al., 2024, p. 15). Schaefer et al. (2024) described these as “missed opportunit[ies] for practice and a gap in the literature,” (p. 10), highlighting that students are often treated as passive providers of perspectives rather than active collaborators.

At the same time, as educational researchers in this field, we know that this gap can be attributed in part to the logistical and ethical complexities of conducting research with minors. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) often have stringent requirements that can make direct engagement with young adolescents challenging for researchers to navigate. It is also true that the MLER SIG research agenda specifically asked for the reviews to analyze literature that followed the 2016 MLER SIG Research agenda, some of which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic between 2019 and 2022, making it more difficult to include young adolescents in research. Nevertheless, there is a need for the field to develop more effective and ethical strategies for youth-engaged research that move beyond these structural obstacles.

4.2.2. Dominance of Qualitative Research

The dominance of qualitative methodologies across the reviews points to a commitment to contextualized, interpretive approaches that honor the complexity of middle level settings and middle level education. While our analysis showed that the middle level education research field has prioritized qualitative methods to explore complex, contextualized phenomena, this reliance has revealed a critical gap in the methodologies used in research focused on young adolescents and middle schools. The gap does not mean a deficiency in the body of qualitative work. The qualitative lens offers critical insights and understandings into middle level teaching, learning, and contexts throughout many of the research agenda themes. This aligns with the nature of qualitative research, which often surfaces student and teacher perspectives, examines context, and generates theory from practice (Creswell, 2014). The field’s emphasis on qualitative methods appears to align with broader educational research trends, where qualitative approaches account for approximately half of published studies in fields such as educational technology (Kimmons et al., 2025).

Despite these strengths, the methodological limitations identified across literature reviews suggest that middle level education researchers may be missing opportunities to demonstrate impact, scale successful practices, and build cumulative knowledge. As noted in Section 3.2.2, the lack of longitudinal and large-scale studies described in nine of the papers limits our understanding of the long-term effects and transferability of practices. Authors in six of the papers also noted a lack of long-term follow-up or quantitative validation of interventions and strategies. Few studies explored how findings might be replicated or scaled across contexts (Terrell Shockley et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024).

This finding adds to broader calls (Mertens et al., 2016; Kleine et al., 2018; Yoon et al., 2015) to expand methodological diversity across the field of middle level education. Expanding methodological approaches to include longitudinal studies, large-scale investigations, mixed methods design, and multi-site research could help triangulate findings, generalize results, and examine long-term impact. Greater methodological diversity would complement the current rich qualitative data and strengthen the field’s capacity to demonstrate scalability and long-term effectiveness to diverse audiences, inside and outside of the academic community.

The absence of practical frameworks exacerbates this challenge. Even when research identifies promising practices, the literature reviews found that studies failed to provide clear, replicable models that schools could implement. Without explicit frameworks, well-researched practices cannot be scaled or validated. The opportunity exists to translate what is working into actionable guidance that can make research more applicable and reliable across settings.

4.2.3. Diverse Representation

Our analysis revealed a limited focus on diverse populations in the study samples across middle level research. The absence of diverse participants in middle level education research reflects a research base that privileges certain voices while marginalizing others. When studies on culturally responsive teaching do not include diverse participants (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Terrell Shockley et al., 2024), or when research on identity development excludes students (Martin et al., 2025) and teachers (Andrews & Wright, 2024) whose identities are most marginalized, the field’s research practices contradict its stated commitment to “uplift the voices and experiences of Black scholars, educators, and young adolescents and their families” (point 1) and “center anti-racist methodologies and pedagogical approaches” (point 3) (MLER SIG Anti-Racist Statement, 2020).

While middle level education increasingly emphasizes identity-affirming pedagogies, the research base reveals a critical paradox: the absence of diverse participants, including students with (dis)abilities, LGBTQ+ youth, and educators of color, creates an incomplete picture that constrains efforts to fully prepare teachers for today’s diverse middle level classrooms. This disconnect affects both teacher preparation and student experiences, given that it is during these years that young adolescents are engaged in identity exploration across multiple domains (Andrews & Wright, 2024; Main et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2024). Without diverse voices in the research, we cannot understand how identity-affirming pedagogies work for the full range of students that middle grades educators serve. The literature calls for culturally responsive practices, yet simultaneously excludes the populations these practices are meant to support.

This raises questions about the validity and applicability of findings. How can research on equity-focused practices be robust when it does not include the populations most affected by inequity? How can any research on effective middle level education practices be generalizable if the sample is not representative of the larger population? Current methodological approaches, while valuable, may inadvertently produce an incomplete understanding of diverse middle level education contexts. Since studies are rarely replicated across contexts, we continue to make policy and practice decisions on incomplete data. The field cannot fulfill its aspirational commitments without fundamentally rethinking who participates in research and how.

This methodological gap has reached beyond research validity. As Dever et al. (2024) noted, the field struggles to recruit and retain middle level educators from underrepresented populations. When research excludes diverse voices, it perpetuates a cycle whereby the knowledge base used to inform and prepare middle level teachers does not reflect the students they teach or the communities in which they will teach. How can teacher preparation programs effectively prepare educators to work with diverse populations when the research informing those programs does not include those populations? How can schools create inclusive environments when the evidence base guiding their practices is built on homogeneous samples or data without demographic data?

4.3. Limitations

This content analysis is based on 13 reviews of literature published in a Special Issue of Education Sciences across 2024 and 2025. While each literature review included an extensive literature search around a specific topic, the project’s goal was to do a sweep of the literature. We acknowledge that the literature reviews did not explore every topic related to educating young adolescents, nor was every article relevant to middle level education read and analyzed across these 13 papers. Additionally, the literature reviews in this analysis primarily focused on peer-reviewed journal articles. Most excluded dissertations, conference presentations, and non-peer-reviewed sources, such as newsletters and blogs. This approach may have omitted emerging scholarship and critical practitioner perspectives.

The analysis also reflects a predominantly Western and US-centric bias. Despite some efforts to include international perspectives, this geographic focus limits the generalizability of findings and may obscure important variations in middle level education approaches and effectiveness across the globe. Finally, our collaborative analysis process involved multiple researchers to enhance reliability. We recognize that this content analysis is interpretive. As such, our own biases and experiences inevitably influenced the interpretation of the data and the identification of the trends and gaps.

4.4. Implications for Future Research

The trends identified in this paper suggest that middle level education research is focused on building on existing strengths while expanding approaches to create more comprehensive and impactful scholarship. It also sheds light on an important moment in middle level education, one focused on a sustained attention to equity and justice alongside the philosophical roots that are embedded in the mainstays of the field. We call for middle level researchers to take on the questions posed in the MLER SIG’s most recent research agenda (see K. Brinegar et al., 2024), both within the individual subsections, but also in interdisciplinary ways that address some of the larger cross-cutting gaps identified across this project.

We contend that the field’s growing commitment to equity and critical approaches provides a foundation for methodological innovation. This commitment should also extend to considerations of who conducts middle level research and educates future middle level teachers. Addressing representation and diversity within the researcher and teacher educator community itself is essential for ensuring that equity work is authentic, sustained, and grounded in diverse perspectives. We encourage researchers to build on the field’s strong qualitative tradition by incorporating additional approaches such as longitudinal studies to track the long-term impact of culturally responsive practices, mixed methods design that combine deep contextual understanding with broader generalizability, and collaborative approaches that center young adolescents as co-researchers rather than subjects.

The middle level research community has now produced three collaborative research agendas, demonstrating the field’s capacity for collaboration, coordination, and collective knowledge building. If this can be performed to produce research agendas, why not continue this collaborative work to address the methodological gaps identified in this paper? Multi-site collaborations could address calls for larger-scale projects, coordinated research initiatives could address questions about teacher preparation and retention across multiple contexts, and collective data sharing could open possibilities for longitudinal studies.