Exploring the Intersection of Youth Development, Physical Education, Teacher Education, and Social Justice

Abstract

There are few conceptual frameworks or models related to educators’ competencies at the intersection of social justice; youth development; and physical education, activity, or sport content and pedagogy. The purpose of this multiple case study was to examine how the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals teaching physical education contribute to understanding the integration of social justice principles in youth development contexts through sport and physical activity. This study involved the within-case and cross-case analyses of two main cases: preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants teaching physical education in a youth development context. The preservice teacher and the graduate teaching assistant within-case analysis each resulted in two complementary themes (four total). The cross-case analysis resulted in three total themes. Together, these seven themes are conceptualized into three categories: (1) assumptions prior to teaching, (2) emergent just teaching, and (3) considering race. While training all future professionals for equitable and justice-oriented teaching is key, we cannot ignore the glaring reality that many individuals with more culturally diverse backgrounds are predisposed to embodying such orientations. Findings reinforce the importance of preparing (and recruiting) educators who not only have pedagogical skills but who can also teach for justice.

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview and Background

Currently, calculated attacks on diversity, equity, inclusion, and ultimately justice, in the United States and abroad are widespread. These challenges are especially visible in the field of education where both political and ideological resistance to justice-oriented practices threatens the cultural well-being of young people. Despite these challenges, it is imperative that educators, in any capacity, persist in finding effective and innovative ways to educate young people, utilizing methods that contribute to students’ (and society’s) cultural well-being.

Over the past several decades, a variety of theories and frameworks have emerged to guide educational practices aimed towards justice and equity. These include approaches that center cultural relevance, responsiveness, and empowerment. For instance, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2010), and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2017) have each contributed to reshaping educational paradigms by affirming the cultural identities of learners and emphasizing critical consciousness. The field of physical education, in particular, is no exception. Physical education scholars have explored ways to teach content and train teachers in ways that are equitable and oriented toward social justice efforts (Blackshear & Culp, 2021; Boyd et al., 2021; Culp, 2016; Flory & Landi, 2020; Lynch et al., 2022; Walton-Fisette & Sutherland, 2018).

Similar efforts have emerged in youth development, particularly in sports-based youth development programs, where the focus is often on supporting young people’s overall well-being (Santos et al., 2022). While many sports-based youth development program initiatives promote character development and life skills, Social Justice Youth Development takes this a step further by centering empowerment, critical consciousness, and collective action (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002).

Physical activity and sport-based settings are increasingly recognized as platforms for advancing social justice goals (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011). Both physical education and sports-based youth development programs serve as distinctive educational spaces where students can engage in learning that supports identity and social awareness. While these fields have historically operated in silos, there is growing recognition of the overlapping goals and potential for alignment between PE, youth development, and social justice-related education (Flory & Landi, 2020; Lynch et al., 2022).

Some scholars have begun to examine this intersection, particularly within teacher preparation programs that place preservice educators in youth development contexts (Cammarota & Romero, 2011; Dixon et al., 2022). However, the integration of physical education, youth development, and social justice is generally underexplored. Conversely, research on youth development and physical activity tends to emphasize outcomes such as positive youth development and life skills while less frequently addressing issues of equity, race, or power (Santos et al., 2022). Not only that, but it also often neglects the pedagogical effectiveness or training of instructors (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2014).

Moreover, there remains a gap in understanding how educators’ personal and pedagogical experiences shape their readiness and capacity to engage in justice-oriented work within sport and physical activity-based youth development settings (Simon et al., 2025). This is particularly urgent in contexts where youth face complex social, economic, and cultural challenges. If educators are to use sport and PE meaningfully in service of social justice, they must be both critically conscious and pedagogically competent (Paris & Alim, 2017; Gay, 2010). Yet, without intentional and critical bridges between physical education and youth development, we risk preparing educators who are either socially aware but pedagogically underprepared or pedagogically skilled but socially disengaged (Lynch et al., 2022; Sleeter, 2001).

1.2. Theoretical Framework

Identifying a single comprehensive framework that adequately addresses the complexity of the various issues presented in this manuscript creates a challenge. To acknowledge the nuanced interrelatedness of the various facets of racialized and pedagogical experiences in the contexts of youth development, physical education, teacher education, and social justice, an interdisciplinary theoretical framework is applied. Accordingly, this study draws on the Social Justice Youth Development (SJYD) framework, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), elements of Culturally Relevant and Sustaining Pedagogies (CRSPs), and Critical Race Theory (CRT). While each theory brings distinct tenets, together, they offer a lens with which to examine the multifaceted nature of the topics explored in this manuscript.

Firstly, SJYD is useful in establishing a core framework to begin to make sense of whether and/or to what degree teachers implement social justice principles into their instruction in youth development contexts. Ginwright and Cammarota (2002) established this framework connecting social action and critical consciousness as a “necessary couplet”. Their work is built upon the notion introduced by Freire (1970), which highlights praxis, a cyclical process of critical reflection and action (Dixon et al., 2023). Praxis, according to Freire, is performed towards and leads to social critique and change. In this study, SJYD frames how educators may leverage levels of awareness in young people that equip them to engage in efforts leading to self and social transformation. As such, this framework is of particular relevance in this study as the nuances of teaching in a youth development context are explored.

The application of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of PCK further enhances this investigation by centralizing attention to the quality of subject area content and pedagogical practices of teachers in youth development contexts. PCK describes the intersection of teachers’ subject matter knowledge and the pedagogical skills with which they deliver that content to a diverse range of students. In this study, this framework is pivotal, in that the pedagogical expertise and effectiveness of teachers are situated as necessary if the teaching and learning process is to be utilized as a conduit for social justice principles.

Next, various elements of CRSPs are critical in framing how educators’ perspectives and experiences can give insight into their potential to affirm and uphold the value of the cultural identities of the students with whom they work. In particular, this study explores how these teachers might do so with educational mechanisms. Ladson-Billings’ (1995, 2014) culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) is founded on her work centered on CRT and centers the educationally related experiences of Black and other people of color. Academic success, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness are the three tenets that comprise this framework. Similarly, culturally responsive pedagogy emphasizes similar goals, such as valuing and affirming students’ cultures, yet within the educational context (Gay, 2010). Culturally sustaining pedagogies, the most contemporary framework of the three, adds to the responsiveness and relevance of previous work to encourage actively sustaining students’ cultural ways of life with a more active political stance (Paris & Alim, 2017). In all, these CRSP frameworks enrich this study by contextualizing the experiences of teachers operating in youth development contexts in ways that attend to the sociopolitical and cultural nature of those experiences.

Finally, CRT provides necessary framing for the assertion that race is, in fact, a significant factor in the educational setting of this study which is couched in a U.S. context (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Ladson-Billings and Tate’s (1995) CRT brings the significance of race and racialized identities into the educational context and provides an additional layer of framing that explores race and racism in systemic educational practices and pedagogies. CRT deepens our understanding of the study’s focus by acknowledging and grappling with how race impacts both the educational practices and the lived experiences of educators and students.

In all, the tenets of these frameworks provide distinct yet complementary vantage points from which racialized and pedagogical experiences of students and teachers may be examined. Together, these various frameworks provide an interdisciplinary lens aimed at understanding and unpacking the complexities of how justice, pedagogy, and race intersect in a youth development context.

1.3. The Problem, Purpose, and Questions

Currently, there are few, if any, well-known conceptual frameworks or models that intentionally develop educator’s competencies at the intersection of social justice, youth development, and physical education, activity, or sport content and pedagogy. This is particularly true when considering the racial identity of the educators. It is unclear whether those enacting social justice youth development approaches through physical activity and sport are doing so in a manner that is both socially just and pedagogically sound. Understanding how the personal and professional experiences of PE educators in youth development contexts contribute to this work is critical for developing a more justice-oriented professional pipeline.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals teaching physical education, including preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants, contribute to understanding the integration of social justice principles in youth development contexts through sport and physical activity. This study seeks to explore how these educators’ racialized and pedagogical experiences can inform the evaluation and preparation of current and future professionals, helping to gauge and enhance their fitness to effectively apply quality PE content and pedagogy as tools for advancing social justice and youth development goals through sport and PA.

The two research questions that guided the study were the following: (1) “How do the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals who taught physical education at youth development center inform our understanding of integrating social justice principles through sport and physical activity in youth development contexts?” and (2) “How can insights from the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals who taught PE at youth development center inform our understanding of the preparedness and preparation of professionals to effectively apply social justice principles through sport and physical activity in youth development contexts?” By focusing on educators’ experiences, this study addresses the need for well-prepared and appropriately oriented professionals capable of applying social justice and youth development goals through sport and physical activity, while utilizing high-quality physical activity or physical education content and pedagogy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology

This study employs a multiple-case study design (Yin, 2018). This approach was deemed appropriate, as analyzing the separate teaching experiences of two distinct groups or cases (i.e., preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants) was necessary to gain insight into the research questions. This methodology is rooted in a constructivist epistemological tradition. This supports the investigative goal to construct understanding of the phenomenon in a social context. Additionally, given the nature of the separate cases, a relativist ontological view permits the validity of multiple realities and diverse experiences of the same phenomenon. This allows for context to play a significant role in meaning-making of the data from each case. The multiple case study design also permits the individual voice represented in each case to be valued apart from the other case.

This investigation is part of a larger research study conducted by the author focusing on preservice teachers (Dixon et al., 2022) and graduate teaching assistants (Dixon et al., 2021). The present analysis offers a distinct and novel contribution by integrating both participant groups through a multiple-case study design and conducting a comparative cross-case analysis. The goal is to gain a more nuanced understanding of how the participants engage with pedagogy while teaching physical education content in this youth development context. By applying an interdisciplinary framework (SJYD, PCK, CRSP, and CRT) across both cases, this study seeks to examine how the multifaceted racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals teaching physical education contribute to understanding the integration of social justice principles in youth development contexts through sport and physical activity. This comparative perspective is not explored in prior work. Also, this framing and its engagement with race is a novel contribution.

2.2. Setting

The setting for this study is couched in a university and youth development center partnership. In essence, this partnership included a longstanding, nearly 30-year agreement between both entities that comprised the school of kinesiology at the university providing graduate-level, physical education teaching assistants to deliver physical education classes at the academically accredited youth development center for its students. As an extension of this partnership, a one-time 45-lesson field experience was also hosted at the youth development center. Under the supervision of their secondary methods course instructor, undergraduate preservice physical education teachers delivered physical education to youth development center students. Additional descriptions of the university and youth development center partnership and the undergraduate course are discussed in the following subsections.

2.2.1. The Youth Development Center

The youth development center served as a residential treatment facility for adolescents with ages generally ranging from 12 to 17 years old. The state-funded, not-for-profit agency provides a range of services and care for the local youth and their families. Discipline issues at school or home and family-related issues such as neglect or abuse are common reasons to be referred to the youth development center. Once referred, these young people are mandated to participate in these services and are required to live on the campus site. The duration of their stay was dependent on treatment level and ranged from 42 days to six months. Stays could sometimes continue for years if additional treatment was deemed necessary. The residents of the youth development center were demographically diverse, representative of various races, ethnicities, cultures, socioeconomic statuses, abilities, and genders.

The youth development center campus included a learning center, an alternative school, and a juvenile detention facility. In addition to its therapeutic services, the center is state-accredited as an academic institution and provides a grade-appropriate curriculum for each student. Physical education classes were part of that curriculum and are the focus of this study. On average, class sizes ranged from six to 15 and were separated by gender. Additionally, physical education classes were facilitated on either cement outdoor basketball courts, small grassy fields, a walking trail, or a fitness center. While the youth development center offered limited equipment, equipment either purchased by the physical education teachers or borrowed from the university was regularly utilized.

2.2.2. The Pedagogical Context

While the youth development center sets the backdrop for the physical setting of the study, the pedagogical context at the youth development center varies across the two cases. Under instructor supervision, the undergraduate preservice teachers taught physical education at the youth development center as one part of a three-part field experience during their 16-week enrollment in a pedagogy course focused on secondary teaching methods. The graduate teaching assistants, on the other hand, were considered student–employees as they were hired to teach physical education to the residents of the youth development center on a semester-by-semester basis to satisfy their hourly obligations as graduate teaching assistants for the university. In sum, the youth development center served as the physical setting where the following pedagogical settings were created: (1) supervised teaching of physical education as a preservice teacher and (2) unsupervised teaching of physical education as a graduate teaching assistant.

2.3. Participants

The preservice teachers (n = 8) were senior physical education majors and were enrolled in a pedagogy course related to secondary teaching methods. The graduate teaching assistants (n = 3) were graduate-level (i.e., master’s and doctoral students) physical education teachers enrolled in a physical education teacher education program. For this study, rather than focusing on individual participants, each group was treated as distinct, yet cohesive, case.

Participants across these cases were recruited utilizing purposeful and convenient sampling strategies from a large, public, southeastern predominately White university. Additionally, each participant was provided an informed consent form which was reviewed, signed, and returned. While each had unique characteristics, this study collectively explores the intersection of each case with youth development, social justice, and physical education teacher education.

2.3.1. Preservice Teachers

The preservice teacher case consisted of eight physical education seniors (five males and three females; seven White and one Black) with all but one describing having grown up in White and middle-class demographics. They were each enrolled in a pedagogy course titled “Teaching Secondary Physical Education”. These participants were selected through purposeful and convenient sampling based on their enrollment in the course and availability for the YDC placement. In the course, participants had the opportunity to either teach, co-teach, or participate in between 45 and 50 secondary physical education lessons at a local Youth Development Center (YDC). During this time, each kept reflective journals throughout the process. Although all participants had similar responsibilities, the number of teaching hours varied slightly based on scheduling and absences. The author served as the course instructor and organized the field experience at the YDC.

2.3.2. Graduate Teaching Assistants

The graduate teaching assistant case included three individuals who had formerly served as graduate teaching assistants in the school of kinesiology at the same university as the preservice teachers. All three identified as Black males, having grown up in southern, urban, and majority-Black environments. Each of them was between 28 and 30 years old and currently worked in education at the time of data collection. These graduate teaching assistants worked 13–20 h per week teaching at the youth development center, in addition to fulfilling other academic responsibilities as part of their graduate teaching assistantships. Each graduate teaching assistant had at least six months (and up to several years) of experience teaching secondary physical education at the youth development center. The author, who had also taught at the youth development center and had experience in teacher preparation, facilitated their involvement in the study.

2.4. Data Collection

This study utilizes qualitative data from two distinct cases, including preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants. Data collection was originally designed to inductively capture participants’ perspectives and experiences across various teaching contexts. While themes initially emerged directly from the data, the SJYD framework (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002), PCK (Shulman, 1986), CRSP (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Gay, 2010; Paris & Alim, 2017), and CRT (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) were later applied, respectively, to provide a structured and interdisciplinary analytical lens. By using various forms of data across cases, the opportunity to ascertain meaning from participants in multiple modalities is achieved. Therefore, rather than focusing on individual participants, the data from each group were treated as distinct, yet cohesive, cases. Sources of data were varied across cases but primarily included semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, and teaching artifacts to capture participants’ perspectives and experiences. All audio-recorded data were transcribed. Pseudonyms were used to protect each of the participant’s identity.

2.4.1. Preservice Teachers Case

For the preservice teacher case, data were collected via course artifacts (i.e., reflective journals) and semi-structured interviews. When teaching or co-teaching, participants engaged in 50 min physical education lessons at the youth development center. As part of the course’s assignments, they maintained reflective journals and made entries after each lesson throughout the experience. Entries were typed and ranged from one-half to two full pages, typed and double-spaced. Prompts for journal entries were intentionally general to allow participants to only record what they deemed relevant for a given lesson. Interviews consisted of 13 prompts and lasted between 15 and 50 min in length. Questions were derived from the literature, instructor observations, and participant journal entries (Yeong et al., 2018). Interviews prompted participants to describe their experiences and any transfer to future teaching experiences. For example, participants were asked the following questions: “Describe your experience teaching at the YDC” and “How do you believe the students perceived you?” These questions aimed to elicit reflections on their teaching and relationships with students.

2.4.2. Graduate Teaching Assistant Case

The graduate teaching assistant case involved three participants who taught physical education at the youth development center as part of their graduate teaching assistantships. One semi-structured interview was conducted with each of the participants, three total. Each interview comprised roughly 20 prompts and lasted approximately one hour. Interviews included questions related to their experiences while teaching and their content and pedagogical decisions. These questions were intended to glean insight as to how and why these participants employed the strategies they used at the youth development center. Interviews also included questions related to the participants’ family and academic histories. Sample questions included the following: “Describe your current teaching philosophy”, “How has teaching at the YDC influenced the way you teach practically, if at all?”, and “Describe your support system as a teacher at YDC”. Demographic information was collected as well to help build the participants’ case.

2.5. Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

A multiple case study approach (Yin, 2018) was used to deductively analyze the data through the interdisciplinary framework. The multiple case-study approach allowed for cross-case comparisons while maintaining the unique contexts of each case, while the various frameworks provided a worthwhile lens to explore the experiences of each case. After deductive coding of data, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was utilized to identify common themes within and across cases. These themes were developed in alignment with key tenets of SJYD, PCK, CRSP, and CRT.

In the first phase, each case was analyzed independently, and themes were identified through an initial coding process. As descriptive patterns emerged from the data, they were aligned with theoretical tenets. This stage kept unique themes in each case preserved. In the second phase, a cross-case analysis was conducted to explore themes between the preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants. In this phase, a deeper comparison of how the SJYD framework was engaged across the participant groups. Themes that appeared across multiple cases were further examined to understand their implications.

Throughout the analysis, researcher reflexivity, thick and rich descriptions, memoing, and peer debriefing were used as means of credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2003). Thick descriptions led to deeper understanding of participant experiences. Memoing clarified the researcher’s thoughts during data analysis. Cross-referencing multiple forms of data and cases led to triangulation for validity. The researcher also regularly reflected on positionality to maintain transparency in interpreting the findings.

3. Results

The findings of this study are derived from the data analysis of two distinct cases and are organized into three main sections: within-case data from the preservice teachers, the graduate teaching assistants, and followed by a third section that synthesizes the cross-case findings. The first two sections highlight the within-case data, providing a detailed understanding of the experiences of the individual cases involved. The third section draws connections across the cases to identify common themes and patterns. The preservice teacher within-case analysis resulted in two major themes: (1) initial (deficit) perspectives and impact on teaching and (2) counternarratives and shift towards aptitude for empowerment. The graduate teaching assistant within case analysis resulted in two themes, as well: (1) initial (asset) perspectives and impact on teaching and (2) contextual inequities and cultural pedagogies. The cross-case analysis resulted in three themes: (1) varying assumptions prior to teaching, (2) increasingly fertile ground for just teaching, and (3) what about race? Rather than focusing on individuals within each case, each case is presented as a cohesive unit. All participant quotes presented in this section are drawn from semi-structured interviews unless otherwise noted. To maintain readability and narrative coherence, direct quotes are embedded within thematic discussions rather than presented or with coded participant labels. Identifying features (e.g., race, role, or region) are included contextually where relevant to preserve anonymity while supporting analytical clarity.

3.1. Preservice Teacher Case

3.1.1. Initial (Deficit) Perspectives and Impact on Teaching

Without prior opportunities to teach in youth development contexts or specific training related to justice and equity, the preservice teachers largely approached the setting with assumptions rooted in deficit ideologies. They acknowledged their unfamiliarity with the space, with some even noting being unaware that such contexts existed. Despite the limited and often nonexistent exposure to the context, most nonetheless entered preloaded with preconceived notions about the environment and the youth in it. For example, one of the preservice teachers mentioned they expected to be “breaking up fights like all the time”. These types of assumptions were expressed to be shaped by communications from others about the space and portrayals in media, leading the preservice teachers to not only to expect to observe violence but also to be personally impacted by it. Somewhat reflective of the preservice teachers’ preconceived notions, one shared, “First going up there, we even all talked about it. I was like, ‘This is fixing to be rough’”.

The preservice teachers also expressed belief that the students (and, in some instances, the students’ families) were solely to blame for their placements at the center. While articulating early thoughts of the context prior to exposure, one preservice teacher said, “…these kids didn’t get in here for stealing a cookie from a cookie jar. Or singing too loud in a church choir. I hate to say it like that but, that’s true. These kids are in there because they didn’t do right”. Aside from the students themselves, the preservice teachers assumed that the students’ families had a role to play in the students’ current circumstances. As one preservice teacher put it, “It’s kinda hard to put structure in those kids’ lives. When they grew up with no structure at all”.

These deficit perspectives held by the preservice teachers influenced their approach to teaching. With expectations of the students such as, “getting no respect whatsoever”, many felt that delivering high-quality content and pedagogical instruction was an unrealistic goal for the students in the youth development setting. They did not initially view the environment as a site for academic learning, nor did they see their role as educators in a traditional sense. Instead, they were more concerned with dealing with or managing student behavior, the majority of which they considered would be problematic. One preservice teacher remembered thinking, “…we’re fixing to get beat up out here”. Another mentioned expecting to meet, “…a bunch of nonlaw-abiding kids with attitudes and no respect for authority”. Unfortunately, many held the belief that the students would resist structured learning altogether. One expressed the belief the students were, “not going to do anything we want to do”.

The preservice teachers were skeptical of the students’ academic interests and aptitude assuming that PE content and pedagogy would “go over their heads”. They also had low views of what the students thought about their presence in the context as teachers. One said, “I think they were just thinking, ‘get out of here’. That’s what I think. I think there is, ‘Oh here we go with this crap’”. This led to the preservice teachers lowering academic expectations of the students. Consequently, they framed their primary role as organizing games that would allow students to vent or burn energy rather than skill development or meaningful learning. Or in one preservice teacher’s own words, they planned to “…just kind of distract them from what’s going on in their environment…. That’s kind of what you’re doing when you’re teaching over there. You not forming true lesson plans and teaching in my opinion”.

Similarly to their thoughts on why the students were in the youth development contexts, the preservice teachers also were inclined to place the onus to learn on the students. For example, after some an initial lack of success, one preservice teacher stated, “They were kind of like, resistant a bit toward a lot of us. I felt like that kind of created a wall, so we couldn’t really do anything with them”. Aside from any student interactions, the setting alone was reason for the preservice teachers to alter their academic expectations of themselves and their students. In speaking of their previewed teaching responsibilities, another said that their goal was to, “…just kind of, honestly, get them to like, move and be active. There wasn’t as much of an agenda as there was at a typical school or traditional school setting”.

Additionally, some noted the perceived lack of formality in the setting reduced the pressure associated with making mistakes. They saw this as a benefit for their teacher training as it seemed mistakes were less impactful, “…like there was no, ‘You have to be the perfect PE teacher for them’”. In an assessment of the experience of teaching in the context, another preservice teacher said, “I don’t feel like they learned anything. I feel like we was out there for our own personal gain”. The preservice teachers generally expressed perceived benefits for themselves going into the space. Beyond rudimentary integrations of early content and pedagogy, few preservice teachers demonstrated initial readiness to integrate social justice principles in their teaching or empower students to engage in social action.

3.1.2. Counternarratives and Shift Towards Aptitude for Empowerment

After guided encounters with students in the youth development context, the perspectives of the preservice teachers began to shift notably. One mentioned, “I judged it and when I got there it was just completely different than I thought it would be”. Another said, “I thought after you get to know them all, they’re all good kids”.

Getting to interact with the students helped the preservice teachers to enjoy their experience and move along in having more humanizing views of the students. One preservice teacher said, “One thing you don’t expect…well you do expect to see bad kids there, but each of those kids, they have an emotional side, too. They’re real people too they have real feelings”. Exposure to students’ lived realities challenged many initial assumptions and fostered a more nuanced understanding of them. Through these counternarratives, the preservice teachers began to articulate their beliefs that the students were “just a little misunderstood”. In expressing the internal struggle to push past deficit perspectives, one preservice teacher said this as it relates to their effort in doing so:

“I mean, in that you have to give more effort to care about them and instead of just writing them off and saying, like, ‘you’re just a trouble maker’ and ‘I don’t care what you do here, I don’t care if you do PE’. Like it takes more effort on the teacher’s part to be like, ok, channel my patience, channel my self-control, control my heart, and say ok, let’s see what I can do differently to make you want to juggle, to make you want to play mafia, to make you want to play ball, kind of thing. Because they may not have had the same family background or anything like that. Their life—it just may look different. Different than mine especially. But then other people’s too. So, yea”.

Their instructional goals shifted from low academic expectations to a stronger emphasis on affective outcomes such as enjoyment, fun, relationship-building, and “making the residents feel important”. Preservice teachers increasingly affirmed the importance of developing personal connections with students as critical pedagogical strategy. They demonstrated a growing ability to adapt to better meet student needs and motivations by modifying instruction. In recalling their train of thought after experiencing some setbacks, they say, “ok, let’s see what I can do differently to make you want to [participate]”.

Although none of the preservice teachers fully enacted teaching practices that led directly to social action or systemic change, evidence of emerging competencies surfaced. Some of them exhibited “flashes” of justice-oriented pedagogical thinking, revealing a potential foundation for future growth and development. Initially, the preservice teachers had perspectives related to teaching the students that were centered mainly on their own professional development. However, a common thread was an evolving recognition that the experience, and their teaching, could be beneficial for the students themselves. For some, this was more pedagogical and content-related. For example, making a concerted effort to teach that “there’s more to PE than basketball”, which was a common activity of choice for students during free time. In speaking of teaching goals in the contexts, another said, “Yes, we are trying to teach you PE, but we want to just invest”.

In expressing a desire to be responsive to student issues, one preservice teacher said, “…we can’t always give people solutions but can kind of help them…lead towards that solution, like give them a path, direct them. Because you can’t change someone’s life, but you can direct them as a teacher”. They began to express a commitment to investing in the students’ holistic well-being beyond physical education content. Speaking of some challenges with student participation, a preservice teacher recalled that “…it was disheartening when they didn’t want to participate. But I had to just remind myself that these kids are going through things you can never imagine them going through.” Another preservice teacher said,

“But when you’re teaching, it’s more than the lesson plan. You have that lesson, but you need to get out of the lesson, you need to build that relationship. And honestly, I figured that it would be you need to be able to relate to your students more [in the youth development context]. Being able to talk about your struggles, whatever that may be. It may be some more severe than others, some not so severe. But being able to relate with the students…I learned that there. That they want somebody, they don’t want somebody that has had the same background as them, but they want somebody who understands their struggles”.

Regarding planning, another said,

“having the same plan for every class or every student doesn’t work. So, I think now my teaching philosophy is shaped around making a difference more than running a pretty cookie-cutter classroom. And remembering, everybody has a story still”.

The preservice teachers developed a growing appreciation for youth culture, viewing the building of rapport not just as a management strategy, but as a way to motivate students, affirm their worth, and serve them. One expressed, “You have to love and care about students and their well-being and also their learning and what you’re teaching them…they need to learn because it’s healthy for them as a human being”. Another expressed a desire to be seen as an advocate:

“I would hope that I have students that perceive me as someone who will advocate for them and listen if they need to and be somebody they can count on even if those around them that they should be able to count on, they can’t do that with”.

Some preservice teachers articulated an emerging understanding that broader societal and environmental factors impact student experiences and motivation, challenging simplistic notions of meritocracy. One preservice teacher mentioned, “[The teaching experience] did give me an eye opener that there are kids out there who are good kids who are quiet, and don’t speak up, and they really have troubled lives and it’s not their fault”. Another preservice teacher noticed, “Their equipment was ragged down. There was no athletic equipment. No sports stuff…I felt like they needed new equipment…Maybe spark up some interest in it”. They began to humanize the students, being more considerate of the setting the students were in. Another preservice teacher said,

“It changed my philosophy of teaching… to build relationships with the students. Because you’re not going to get very far, I believe, if you don’t relate to them. And I’m not saying you have to the same background as them. But you kind of need to understand them…how their background can affect them now and in the future”.

The preservice teachers were able to acknowledge a belief that these students were fundamentally the same as any others, as opposed to earlier deficit thinking. In other words, “They were just like any other kid at a regular school setting”. Exposure to student narratives that countered their prior assumptions prompted some to responsively and critically reassess their beliefs.

While some preservice teachers committed to future work in similar communities, motivated by a desire to “make a difference”, others struggled to fully abandon deficit views. Some preservice teachers had negative or deficit views that persisted beyond the experience. Despite encountering positive counter narratives, a few clung to narratives that framed observed favorable student behavior as disingenuous. One preservice teacher went as far as to say that “If those kids would have been a little bit more telling us what we needed to hear rather than what we wanted to hear, I think it would have been more helpful for us as teachers”. This phenomenon included some preservice teachers creating false or embellished narratives to support deficit thinking toward the students. In an interview, one preservice teacher made claims that “Most of these kids, their parents were never married, they were an accident so to speak. And their parents are usually, users of drugs, alcohol. It just seems to be the common theme there with most every student I’ve seen”. These hyperbolic claims were made with no warrant or access to this type of information. Similar, despite experiencing misbehavior from majority-White students in more traditional contexts, some preservice teachers still labeled the more racially diverse student in the youth development context as more problematic. For example, one said,

“In [local, majority White school district], where we did a lot of our [teaching], there were some bad kids. But if you take them and put them in like [local, majority Black school district], the bad kids would look like angels from what everybody’s told me. And I believe that to be true based on stories”.

Even as it relates to the idea that the lack of equipment impacting student motivation and participation, some preservice teachers struggled to fully vacate deficit views that place the blame on the students. In speaking of providing basic physical education equipment for students, one preservice teacher said,

“It would be more beneficial if you had more equipment. But then again, there’s only so much funding that is going to go to a [youth development context]. I guess because those kids are seen as kinda lost so to speak. Maybe rightly so, maybe not… It is tough to put a lot of funding into bad kids. Almost kind of rewarding them for being bad”.

3.2. Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA) Case

3.2.1. Initial (Asset) Perspectives and Impact on Teaching

The graduate teaching assistants entered the youth development context with some general concerns about the practical challenges of delivering quality instruction. This was mainly due to the limitations of the physical facilities. Neither graduate teaching assistant had prior teaching experience in such settings, and their initial perceptions were heavily shaped by the pre-briefings they received. When exposed to negative narratives about the youth development environment, graduate teaching assistants expressed concerns about student behavior, resource limitations, and their ability to meet pedagogical goals. One mentioned, “All I heard was, they fight a lot. They cussin’ and doing this, and nothing’s together and all this stuff”. However, when encouragement and positive framing were offered by others, graduate teaching assistants responded with optimism and in some instances excitement about the opportunity. Importantly, having peers and role models who viewed the setting positively reinforced the graduate teaching assistants’ asset-based perspectives and helped cultivate a strong sense of professional effectiveness. They also expressed the personal necessity of cultivating a mindset that they felt accommodated the realities of the setting. For example, one said, “I knew that I had to differentiate my learning approach and that I might have to adjust some of my own personal approaches”.

Before even stepping into the setting, graduate teaching assistants articulated a belief in the students’ potential for success. In short, the graduate teaching assistants saw the students as, “children who wanted to learn”. One mentioned his desire for them to know that, “…they had someone who wanted to believe in them…” They positioned themselves as advocates, aiming to support student growth both inside and beyond the gymnasium. Building relationships was identified early as a key strategy for fostering meaningful learning experiences. The graduate teaching assistants’ perspectives aligned with an asset-based approach, emphasizing the capabilities and strengths of the youth rather than focusing solely on deficits or barriers.

In overcoming their concerns, each of the graduate teaching assistants also prioritized delivering high-quality instruction from the outset. They set content and learning goals for their students and incorporated what they were learning in their own studies with their students. At a minimum, they expected to be delivering high-quality physical education content with other affective goals added to their personal aspirations. In describing his understanding of his expectations, one mentioned the importance of “being sure that the kids had a healthy 50 min of exercise. Beyond that baseline, he added,

“Now going deeper than that, my personal passion was to figure out, ‘how can my exercise be beneficial to go back to the classroom?’ And so, I had to find a way to bring a new sort of physical education that they haven’t already seen”.

They also indicated a willingness to adjust their personal teaching styles if needed. This commitment to quality teaching remained consistent throughout their engagement in the youth development context, regardless of the challenges they faced.

3.2.2. Contextual Challenges and Cultural Pedagogies

With that being said, logistical challenges, such as limited equipment and inadequate facilities, did negatively affect the graduate teaching assistants’ teaching experiences. For example, one expressed, “You know, my coach’s room was the back of my car. And so that was a little different because you’re dragging all this equipment back and forth, back and forth, which takes a lot of time of your time”. They also perceived that the academic standards for students at the youth development center were generally lower than in traditional school contexts. However, rather than diminishing their commitment, these obstacles prompted resiliency and innovation. One said, “When I got there, their PE only consisted of someone coming out there, rolling the ball out and playing basketball with them…. I wanted them to see other games or the exercises”. The graduate teaching assistants were creative and adapted their activities to be more responsive to students’ needs and realities, which simultaneously promoted stronger student–teacher connections. In their own words, “more work must be done, and approaches must be ever-changing—adaptive”.

Furthermore, graduate teaching assistants demonstrated sensitivity to broader sociopolitical and contextual factors, such as students’ residential living arrangements on campus and other various factors, which shaped the students’ behaviors and motivations. In other words, they felt that they were “just learning people, the dynamics of people and dynamics of like America, you know, socio-economic status” from teaching in that space. They felt it was important to know, “that [the students] might have needed some type of special attention or some type of understanding”. In a moment of reflection on lessons learned and grappling with his own lived experiences in comparison to the students in the youth development context, one said,

“Just understand the students, to be honest. Understanding the dynamics of people and what children go through… having a better understanding of what children are facing. You know, my home life was very good, to say the least. I’m not gonna say perfect. But I mean, we’re close… definitely when we compare things to some of the traumatic experiences that those students went through. So just really understanding empathy—and also sympathy—because some of that was just straight, sad. Some of those things that students had to deal with and the homes that they were going to and understanding that, you know, the catalyst for some of the reasons where students act out or they may not have liked their behaviors. Children are taking on responsibilities that we typically see adults taking on so I’m just trying to just get a better understanding of that. And just empathizing with students have taught me to better understand that”.

This awareness translated into a more holistic approach to pedagogy—one that integrated strong affective goals and whole-child considerations alongside quality physical education content. One, for example, was intent that “…my goal coming in was trying to make sure the students had meaningful experiences in terms of health and physical education”. Additionally, another said, while reflecting on his views regarding leveraging failing grades as a motivation tool, that

“How do you slowly encourage them to do the exercise? They don’t have to be a part of everything. But let’s talk about something like looking at small, short-term goals. ‘Everybody participate, or you get a zero.’ That’s not really what we want to kind of teach the kids. They’re only going to get up and walk because they know they’re not going to want a zero. But are they actually enjoying it?”

As they continued into their teaching, the graduate teaching assistants expanded their pedagogical strategies to emphasize not only content instruction but also student well-being. One said, “I always try to do what’s in the best interest of the child”. Another said, “I think you also have the ability and the autonomy to teach, you know, an array of things as well. Looking back at it now, I still appreciate that autonomy”. They monitored students’ successes beyond the gym and celebrated growth in other areas of life, indicating a broadening of their role from content deliverers to more holistic educators creating ways to, “laugh with them, smile with them, high-five them…connect with them”. Differentiated instruction emerged as a common practice among the graduate teaching assistants, highlighting their responsiveness to diverse student needs. They remained reflective about their effectiveness, focusing on achieving meaningful learning outcomes while guarding against projecting biases or assumptions onto their students.

Ultimately, the graduate teaching assistants came to see that, regardless of context, all students shared fundamental commonalities and had a desire to learn. In their own words, “To be honest, there is no real difference between the students. You know, everybody’s wanting to learn to do something different”. This realization prompted a commitment to responsive pedagogy. Also, this realization further humanized their views of students in marginalized or nontraditional educational environments. One said, “You definitely just get that experience that you need that teaching experience from people want to learn, but you know, they may not seemingly show or demonstrate their desire to learn”. Another graduate teaching assistant said, “Just learning a lot about the needs of people” was vital to his experience. Their involvement in the youth development context also influenced their professional work beyond the original setting. Graduate teaching assistants expressed situations in which they have recreated similarly empowering experiences for other students in various contexts. They viewed these experiences in the youth development setting as a valuable training ground and useful mechanisms for training teachers and other professional instructors.

3.3. Cross-Case Synthesis

3.3.1. Varying Assumptions Prior to Teaching

Both groups, the preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants, entered the youth development setting with some degree of training in content knowledge and pedagogical preparation related to physical education. However, neither group had prior teaching experience specifically within a youth development context. Moreover, neither had received explicit training in justice- or equity-oriented pedagogical strategies tailored to youth development environments.

In the absence of context-specific experience, both groups entered the space with assumptions shaped by external influences. For the preservice teachers, these assumptions often took on a deficit orientation. They anticipated that the students would be misbehaved, violent, and disinterested in learning. As a result, they doubted the possibility of quality teaching and meaningful learning occurring in the setting. The graduate teaching assistants, while also voicing concerns about their ability to facilitate effective learning, did not attribute their apprehension to the students’ perceived dispositions, capacities, or behaviors. Instead, their concerns centered more on structural and environmental factors such as access to and adequacy of equipment, resources, and facilities. In contrast to the preservice teachers, the graduate teaching assistants’ perspectives were more aligned with asset-based thinking, shaped by their broader contextual awareness.

Both groups referenced how outside messaging impacted their preconceptions. For the preservice teachers, this influence appeared to stem from broad societal narratives and media portrayals, which reinforced negative stereotypes. The graduate teaching assistants also entered with some concerns influenced by others’ negative framing of the setting; however, when presented with more affirming narratives from peers, they demonstrated a willingness to reframe their expectations and maintained a belief in the pedagogical potential of the space.

Notably, the graduate teaching assistants remained optimistic, and purpose-driven. They expressed a commitment to cultivating meaningful relationships with students and viewed themselves as educators and advocates for student growth. The preservice teachers, by contrast, positioned themselves as facilitators of loosely structured physical activity participation. They saw the youth development context as informal and, while they appreciated the freedom this offered them for making instructional mistakes with perceived lower costs, they did not initially view the setting as one conducive to student or teacher development.

Even when both groups experienced similar logistical limitations and recognized the lower academic expectations held by some youth development staff, their interpretations diverged. The graduate teaching assistants viewed the lack of formality as a chance to exercise creativity and autonomy in their pedagogical planning. The preservice teachers, however, initially interpreted the same conditions as evidence that deep learning was unlikely to occur. These assumptions and interpretations not only shaped their initial expectations but also influenced how each group engaged with students and approached the goals of their teaching.

3.3.2. The YD Context as Fertile Ground for Just Pedagogy

Despite initial differences, both groups began to adapt their pedagogical approaches in response to their lived experiences in the youth development setting. The graduate teaching assistants, guided in part by an existing sociopolitical consciousness, were attuned early on to the broader life circumstances of the students. They identified challenges related to housing, family separation, staff dynamics, and lack of access to resources. These were factors that they felt impacted students’ experience, motivation, and overall well-being. This awareness informed their pedagogical strategies and reinforced their commitment to meeting students’ holistic needs.

In contrast, the preservice teachers initially expressed limited concern for quality instruction or social issues in the youth development environment. However, as their teaching experience progressed, their attitudes shifted. Through direct interaction and exposure to students’ counternarratives (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), they began to challenge their earlier deficit assumptions. Many preservice teachers moved from viewing the students as problematic to understanding them as “misunderstood”, in other words, individuals navigating complex lives that shape their behaviors and attitudes.

This shift prompted a turn toward more student-centered pedagogy for both groups. The preservice teachers began to articulate heavily affective and some other academic goals for their instruction. Enjoyment, relationship-building, and fun emerged as intentional strategies to foster learning and connection. This mirrored the graduate teaching assistants’ consistent prioritization of relationship-building as both a strategy and an outcome of teaching.

Notably, both groups made pedagogical decisions that responded to students’ environmental contexts, treating their teaching as a mechanism for broader youth development. For the graduate teaching assistants, this was an extension of their initial commitment; for the preservice teachers, it represented a pedagogical shift. While the graduate teaching assistants approached the experience with a mindset already shaped by more culturally considerate pedagogies, the preservice teachers arrived at similar insights only after engaging directly with the students.

Importantly, both groups expressed a desire to carry these insights forward. The preservice teachers noted an increased interest in working with similarly situated students in the future, while the graduate teaching assistants continued to offer experiences like the youth development setting to current students as opportunities for mutual growth. However, this transformation was not uniform. While preservice teachers acknowledged their initial deficit thoughts were wrong in some instances, there remained no critique of how or why they came to think that way in the first place. Additionally, some preservice teachers continued to hold onto deficit perspectives despite contradictory evidence. This persistence of bias was not observed among the graduate teaching assistants.

An additional insight emerged from both cases: educators came to see the youth development students as “just like any other kids”. For preservice teachers, this realization marked a shift in recognizing that students in youth development contexts were just as capable and humanized as those in more traditional school environments. For the graduate teaching assistants, the insight cut in the other direction. They communicated that students in traditional, more privileged, or advantaged settings faced similar emotional or social challenges as those in the youth development context.

3.3.3. What About Race?

Strikingly (or perhaps not so much), race did not emerge as an explicit theme in participants’ reflections on their teaching experiences within the youth development setting. Both groups shared demographic information during data collection, but they did not reference race directly when describing their students or pedagogical practices. The preservice teachers were predominantly White and from middle-class backgrounds in the southeastern United States. Most described their upbringing as “normal” or “typical,” indicating limited engagement with racial or cultural differences prior to the youth development experience. By contrast, all graduate teaching assistants identified as Black men raised in predominantly Black, urban communities. While one graduate teaching reflection included brief acknowledgment of challenges like economic hardship or a single-parent home, all three communicated a strong sense of cultural pride and community strength. Two of the three graduate teaching assistants had attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities, further emphasizing a connection to and appreciation for Black cultural identity. More so than the preservice teachers, the graduate teaching assistants were much more likely to make comments related to race and culture even without speaking to race overtly. Their reflections offer insight into how lived racial experience subtly shaped their interpretations and approaches.

Despite the stark differences in lived experience and cultural background between the two groups (and between the educators and their students), race was rarely cited explicitly as a factor influencing perceptions, assumptions, or pedagogical choices. This contributed to a notable silence around race in the data. This silence may stem from either discomfort in naming race or an underdeveloped critical racial consciousness, particularly among the preservice teachers. Either way, the lack of explicit engagement with race was notable. Especially considering the clear demographic dissimilarities between participants and the youth development student population. While both groups articulated concerns with students’ behaviors, home lives, and learning contexts, these were not explicitly connected to systemic racial factors or structural inequities. This omission will be explored further in the discussion, as it has implications for how justice is conceptualized and enacted in physical education and youth development settings.

With that being said, race was only explicitly acknowledged by participants four times in the data set aside from demographic background information: once among the graduate teaching assistants and three times amongst the preservice teachers. The remainder of this section provides excerpts of those instances. The few mentions of race provide meaningful data points that reflect a range of awareness and positionality.

The graduate teaching assistants, all Black men, conveyed a sense of cultural proximity to the youth development students that seemed to inform their perspectives. One graduate teaching assistant noted his own background as “a little bit of a kid from the streets” and how that because of that, he, “was able to connect with them on a different level”. In the sole comment that mentioned race explicitly, another graduate teaching assistant described the students like this:

“They were really well-mannered men. I think it might have been a couple of young ladies in the [context] but primarily…to be honest, young Black boys. They were very, very well-mannered. Because again, they wanted to participate. They really wanted to be there, and they wanted to participate”.

More commonly, comments generally related to the benefit of a racially diverse teaching experience. Teaching in this setting was framed as a meaningful opportunity to engage with “a unique population” and to support youth who could “benefit from leadership and good teachers”.

Three of the preservice teachers mentioned race in their comments during the semi-structured interviews. Of those three, one was the preservice teacher who identified as a Black man, and another was the preservice teacher who had described their background as culturally diverse on the West Coast of the U.S. The Black preservice teacher acknowledged how his own experience in school, impacted his view of the students in the youth development context.

“I feel like the minorities got treated a little different as far as discipline goes. Like, a lot of people get…well, I won’t say a lot of people… Whites would get three strikes. Brown and Black people would get probably one or two strikes. That’s pretty much my experience with it”.

Additionally, this preservice teacher acknowledged his critical engagement with the notions that that the students were undisciplined. He more so believed that they were mishandled or mistreated and in need of more focused attention. On the experience of working with the students, he also commented,

“…it allows you to see that what your perception of those students might be, is not exactly what it is with those students. And I don’t know if that made sense so, what I’m saying is you might perceive them as, like I said, undisciplined or bad or not willing to take any information or listen to what you have to say, but that’s actually not the case. They want to learn. They want to participate. They just want somebody who cares”.

His comments suggested a critical awareness of systemic inequities and a refusal to accept simplistic narratives of student behavior.

Next, the White preservice teacher from the West Coast shared a comment explicitly related to her racialized identity in the youth development context. She expressed, “I think at first, they looked at me and was like, ugh, this white girl. Another rich white girl coming through just trying to make a grade in a class”. She expressed that she did not want to be observed that way as that was not her disposition coming into the context. Alternatively, expressed disdain for perspectives from her peers that were more along that line. Of her peers, she hoped “that their minds would be a little bit more open”. Also, she mentioned that “…it was just incredibly frustrating the first few days to hear some of the things that my peers were saying. It was hard. And I caught myself deciding between turning around and letting them have it and refraining and just letting them be them. And I’m still learning, pick your battles”. She acknowledged her perceived privilege in her comments and spoke to her efforts to, “being more empathetic and putting myself in their shoes”. She took a more critical tone as well, recognizing the nature of students’ complex life situations. She spoke the impact of the teaching experience and the importance of being

“…aware that there is an ugly side to teaching. There is a side that is painful, and it hurts. There are kids that you would look at and not suspect a thing out of but have an awful life. Or have been through awful things. Just was a good reminder and another good experience for being open and understanding and appreciating the differences that every student has and that every situation has”.

Though not exclusively related to race, she mentioned this desire: “Just advocating for kids who are the underdogs in any sense of the word in any situation”.

Lastly, though somewhat of an outlier, one preservice teacher shared a personal reflection that intertwined an explicit racial awareness with a spiritual calling to teach. This preservice teacher shared their experience at the youth development center as transformative. The interactions with racially and socioeconomically diverse students prompted what was characterized as a clear sense of divine direction. She reflected,

“The Lord has just opened so many doors to be like, ‘you’re going to talk to this kid about God’… I feel like the Lord is just like, ‘You are going to teach at a middle school. And you are going to be on mission for me every day. And you are going to be in a low socioeconomic, or majority African American [school] or whatever that looks like because you’re good at that’”.

While this perspective was unique in its explicit engagement with both race and spirituality, it indicates the powerful role that relational experiences played in shaping this preservice teachers’ sense of purpose and professional trajectory.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this multiple case study was to examine how the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals teaching physical education contribute to understanding the integration of social justice principles in youth development contexts through sport and physical activity. The two research questions that guided the inquiry were the following: (1) “How do the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals who taught PE at YDC inform our understanding of integrating social justice principles through sport and physical activity in youth development contexts?” and (2) “How can insights from the racialized and pedagogical experiences of individuals who taught PE in a youth development context inform our understanding of the preparedness and preparation of professionals to effectively apply social justice principles through sport and physical activity in youth development contexts?”

This study involved the within-case and cross-case analyses of two main cases: preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants teaching physical education in a youth development context. The preservice teacher within-case analysis and the graduate teaching assistant within-case analysis each resulted in two complementary themes (four total). Additionally, the cross-case analysis resulted in three themes. These seven total themes can be generally categorized as such: (1) assumptions prior to teaching, (2) emergent just teaching, and (3) considering race.

Preservice teachers entered the youth development setting with deficit-oriented assumptions, often informed by media portrayals and limited cross-cultural exposure. These perspectives reflect a lack of critical consciousness and limited preparedness to recognize student strengths, which is a central concern in the Social Justice Youth Development (SJYD) framework (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). These findings confirm existing research showing that preservice teachers often hold implicit deficit views about students from marginalized backgrounds, particularly when their preparation fails to address race, culture, and equity directly (Sleeter, 2012; Milner, 2010). The preservice teachers’ reluctance to consider the placement of the students in a youth development context outside of the students’ own actions or that of their families demonstrates a lack of a developed sociological consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 2014). They, alternatively, maintained ideologies of meritocracy that support the notion of students getting or having what they deserve (CITE). This is exemplified in the preservice teachers’ consideration of whether providing adequate equipment for the students would be ultimately in the students’ best interest.

In contrast, the graduate teaching assistants entered the setting with more asset-based mindsets, shaped by their lived experiences in racially and economically diverse communities. Their perspectives prompted them to plan quality instruction that was considerate of practical challenges that were present in the youth development context. These perspectives demonstrate alignment with the tenets of culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies (CRSP), where educators are expected to affirm and uplift students’ cultural identities and lived realities while upholding high academic standards (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2017). The literature supports the notion that teachers who have lived experience in under-resourced or racialized contexts are more likely to value the sociocultural assets students bring to learning (Howard, 2003; Dixson & Fasching-Varner, 2009).

Additionally, low academic expectations are indicators that the preservice teachers were employing ideologies that would impede the students experiencing academic success (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Given these problematic ideologies, the preservice teachers initially did not engage in quality content instruction nor use pedagogical strategies to achieve student learning which are key facets of PCK (Shulman, 1986). However, in addition to notions of academic success (Ladson-Billings, 2014), the graduate teaching assistants displayed desire to enact pedagogical strategies that result in student learning such as instructional flexibility, autonomy, novelty, and developmentally appropriate content (Shulman, 1986).

Both groups of educators evolved in their instructional approaches, increasingly centering their teaching around students’ needs, interests, and lived realities. These shifts represent key components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), in which educators adapt their instructional strategies to make content accessible and meaningful (Shulman, 1986). For preservice teachers, the shift from rigid behavior management to relational, student-responsive teaching reflects the beginnings of culturally relevant, responsive, and sustaining pedagogy (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2017). Graduate teaching assistants entered with this approach in mind and expanded it through their teaching. This mirrors research by Flory and McCaughtry (2011), who found that culturally relevant PE practices require teachers to go beyond standardized instruction and engage youth through relationship-building and socio-emotional attunement. Similarly, Oliver and Kirk (2015) argue that transformative PE pedagogy demands teachers develop a deep understanding of students’ social contexts and use that understanding to guide instruction. While not fully realized, these tendencies did emerge in the context as participants sought to build relationships, invest in students’ well-being, and be generally responsive to student issues and needs (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2014).

While some educators, especially graduate teaching assistants, demonstrated a readiness to support students’ holistic well-being and expressed sociopolitical awareness, few enacted teaching that explicitly connected PE content to systemic issues or led students toward social action. According to SJYD, social justice education should involve not just critical reflection, but also the facilitation of social action and transformation (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Freire, 1970). The graduate teaching assistants approached this ideal more closely, while preservice teachers only began developing such competencies during the experience. This is evident in the data showing the expressed struggle with the preservice teachers’ beginning to challenge their initial ideologies based on their newer experiences in the context (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Watts et al. (2011) emphasize that the development of critical consciousness is often uneven and depends heavily on guided opportunities for reflection and action. In PETE, Dowling et al. (2013) caution that without direct challenges to prevailing ideologies, preservice teachers rarely adopt justice-centered perspectives, even when placed in diverse settings. This was apparent in this disappointing persistence of deficit ideologies that were not changed throughout the experience.

Across both cases, participants expressed a desire to “make a difference” beyond the youth development experience. For graduate teaching assistants, this took the form of actively recreating similar opportunities for current students. For preservice teachers, it manifested in aspirations to work with similar populations in the future. This kind of commitment reflects early stages of the praxis cycle central to Freirean pedagogy and SJYD where reflection on lived experience drives future action (Dixon et al., 2023; Freire, 1970). This is consistent with research showing that immersive, equity-focused field experiences, when thoughtfully designed, can inspire long-term professional commitment to justice-oriented teaching (Casey & Kirk, 2020; Howard, 2003). Exposure did, in fact, become an impetus for some of the participants to reconsider deficit ideologies and move towards just teaching. However, it also mirrors findings that such transformation requires continued engagement beyond initial exposure (Sleeter, 2012; Milner, 2010).

Although race was central to participants’ backgrounds and relevant to the student population in the youth development setting, it was notably absent from participants’ reflections on teaching. This is particularly true amongst the preservice teachers. According to CRT, this silence illustrates how whiteness can operate as the unmarked norm, allowing systemic inequities to remain unacknowledged and unaddressed (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Picower, 2009). Regarding the participants as a whole, this finding supports previous work showing that preservice teachers often avoid or minimize race when reflecting on their teaching experiences, especially when they identify as white (Hammond, 2015; Picower, 2009).

However, the racial silence was not universal. It was evident that the participants in this study with racialized identities (i.e., the Black men) and more racially and culturally diverse lived experiences had the greatest capacities for articulating and engaging with justice-oriented dispositions and practices with youth in educational and youth development contexts (Boyd et al., 2021; Dixon et al., 2025; Dixon et al., 2021). While graduate teaching assistants, all Black men with experiences in racialized communities, did not name race explicitly, it is noted that even among educators of color, systemic barriers and professional norms may discourage explicit engagement with race in PE and sport education contexts (Azzarito, 2009; Flory & Landi, 2020; Simon et al., 2025). Additionally, for the graduate teaching assistants, it is feasible that sharing the same race with the researcher provided a sense of “implied understanding” between researcher and participants leading to race being reference without being explicitly mentioned. Also, sharing the lived experience of embodying a racialized identity with the students may have made it so that they did not feel the need to state race explicitly. It was clear that the graduate teaching assistants had more asset-based and affirming ideologies as it related to the racial diversity represented in the context (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). This confirms PETE scholar Clark’s (2020) findings that Black teachers are key for student success, particularly that of Black students.

In other instances when race was mentioned, it gave a clearer glimpse into the racialized experiences and perspectives of the participants. Again, it is notable that even for the preservice teachers, when they did articulate explicit comments on race, they were either embodied a racialized identity themselves or intentionally expressed having lived experiences that were racially diverse. For the White preservice teacher for example, she was able to acknowledge that her race was a significant factor in how she thought she may be perceived by the students. This shows an emergent, yet still developing, racial self-awareness. Her frustration with peers’ perspectives is an indicator that with appropriate support and diverse cultural competencies, other White preservice teachers can engage with their own identities and engage more responsively with minoritized students. The Black male preservice teacher, via lived experiences, expressed a culturally competent perspective of the racialized consistencies with how students of color are often unjustly impacted by disparities in the carrying out of discipline and punishment (Bell, 2020). This was critical in his counternarrative regarding the students’ circumstances and placement in the youth development context.

There was a well-defined and collective absence of such race reflection among the majority of preservice teachers that were from homogenous, White, middle-class backgrounds. This lack of critical awareness demonstrates the likely inability for the preservice teachers to critically examine their own biases, much less, teach in a way that helps students identify or address inequitable power dynamics in class (Ginciene & Luguetti, 2025). Despite the emotional discomfort that may be experienced by White faculty and preservice teachers (Simon, 2020), several scholars have reinforced the reality that social justice concepts must be intentionally included into that training provided for preservice teachers and other and other youth development leaders alike (Culp, 2011; Harrison & Clark, 2016; Santos et al., 2022; Walton-Fisette & Sutherland, 2018). In alignment with the literature, this points to the limitations of diverse, immersive learning experiences in which structured opportunities to learn and act on clear and well-defined notions of justice and equity are deficient (Delk et al., 2022).

5. Implications

These themes underscore the need for teacher education programs to intentionally confront deficit discourses and incorporate opportunities for critical reflection on cultural identity, content, and pedagogy. There is an urgency for PETE and youth development professionals to move beyond passive exposure to diversity and toward deliberate justice-oriented pedagogical training. Preparing educators to navigate cultural and pedagogical complexity is critical. Teacher educators must move beyond static models of physical education and physical activity instruction and emphasize cultural, relational, identity and justice-oriented teaching practices. Youth development contexts, while often underexplored in PETE programs, may offer fertile ground for cultivating these skills and should be incorporated intentionally into field experiences.

The development of justice-oriented educators requires intentional attention to the intersections of personal identity, professional preparation, PE and PA content, and pedagogical context. Educators do not enter educational or youth development spaces as blank slates. Instead, they bring with them a set of lived experiences, racialized identities, and sociocultural assumptions that shape how they interpret and engage with students. As such, teacher education and youth development training programs must create structured opportunities for individuals to critically examine how their own identities and cultural backdrops inform their pedagogical perspectives and positionalities for students.

Importantly, the idea that youth development contexts are “other”, or “alternative” must be challenged. Youth from youth development programs exist in all educational spaces, whether labeled as such or not. The narratives future professionals receive prior to working with youth, whether encouraging or deficit-oriented, shape how they interpret and respond to the students and setting. This underscores the importance of pre-placement framing, mentorship, and guided reflection to support critical consciousness and pedagogical growth.

The absence of explicit references to race in participants’ reflections raises important questions about what is left unspoken in justice-oriented educational work. Programs aiming to foster equity must not only include race-conscious content and normalize critical dialog about race and positionality as essential components of quality pedagogy. Furthermore, this study calls on institutions to rethink not just how they train but whom they train. Participants who entered with racialized lived experiences demonstrated a stronger initial capacity for asset-based, justice-oriented teaching. This suggests that recruitment and retention of educators from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds is not only about representation but is a pedagogical imperative. Institutions must prioritize pathways into PETE for students of color who bring experiential knowledge that enriches the collective capacity for justice-centered teaching.

5.1. Limitations

One limitation of this study is that the two educator groups represented different levels of formal training and experience. At first glance, the graduate teaching assistants may appear to have had a pedagogical advantage due to their status as graduate-level educators. However, it is important to note that most of the preservice teachers had completed the majority of their coursework in physical education teacher education prior to their placement in the youth development setting. In contrast, the GTAs were in the early stages of their master’s programs, having completed undergraduate degrees in non-teacher education programs and entering with minimal pedagogical training specific to physical education. While the graduate teaching assistants were afforded a longer teaching period in the YD setting, the pedagogical differences may have leveled out over time as both groups engaged in the experience. Still, this variation in entry points presents a limitation when making direct comparisons across cases. Additionally, the study draws from a single youth development program with a specific sociocultural context. As such, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. The characteristics of the setting, which include its residential model, may not reflect other youth development programs or school-based environments where justice-oriented physical education or social justice youth development is practiced.

5.2. Future Research

Future research should continue to explore how teacher and student identity, PE content, and pedagogy intersect in physical education and youth development settings, particularly with aims toward equity and justice. Future studies investigating how emergent educators leverage knowledge of self, others, and pedagogy for learning would deepen our understanding of how best to prepare educators who are equipped not only to teach, but to transform.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how preservice teachers and graduate teaching assistants, situated in a youth development setting, engaged with the pedagogical and racialized dimensions of teaching physical education through rendering notable differences, and some commonalities, between the two groups. These findings reinforce the critical importance of preparing (and recruiting) educators not only with content and pedagogical skills but also with tools for cultural and sociopolitical consciousness who can teach for justice.

We must better identify, recruit, and retain various educators and youth development professionals. While training all future professionals for cultural and pedagogical efficiency is key, we cannot ignore the glaring reality that many individuals with more culturally diverse backgrounds are predisposed to equitable and justice-centered orientations. While we train who we do have, we must seek out those whom we do not. Without doing so, again, we risk preparing (and recruiting) educators who are either socially aware but pedagogically underprepared, pedagogically skilled but socially disengaged—or neither.