prompt“ What works about this draft? What needs to be added / changed?”, a member responded that it would“ be great to have reflection questions prepopulated for teachers to use with children”( Educator Working Group session, November 2022). The group came together to make significant changes to the template, specifically adding repeating reflection questions for teachers to use with children. The shared iterative work and ownership of the written curriculum were both a defining part of the design process.
The data also included multiple moments when group members expressed appreciation for each other’ s contributions and pride in their individual ownership. As one group member shared,“ I appreciated the creativity, loved getting to see ideas fed back to us seeing what we did”( Critical Friends Working Group meeting, June 2023). In the final sessions for both groups, the stars-and-wishes reflection portion of the meeting was ripe with expressions of ownership and pride about the product we had co-created.( For more, see“ Structures and Processes Used in the Working Groups.”) Some members expressed a wish to be able to receive continued feedback from teachers using the curriculum, signaling a desire for continued iteration and collaboration.
Discussion and Significance
The results of this inquiry highlight three critical themes— equitable and playful structures; deep, sustained iteration; and shared ownership— that contributed to the successful engagement of educators in the curriculum development process. These findings align with existing research on participatory design and underscore the importance of inclusive, iterative processes in fostering meaningful collaboration and ownership, particularly in marginalized educational contexts.
The use of equitable and playful structures was a crucial facilitator for fostering a sense of inclusion and psychological safety among participants and reinforced key values— safety, trust, relationships, and joy. These findings resonate with recent studies on playful participatory research, which suggest that collaborative spaces rooted in trust and play can enhance engagement and creativity( Baker & Davila 2018; Baker & Ryan 2021).
The creation of playful, low-stakes entry points for participation may have also mitigated power imbalances within the group, making it easier for participants from varying backgrounds to contribute. This reflects previous findings in collaborative curriculum design research, which emphasize the role of inclusive and dynamic structures in empowering marginalized voices in educational contexts( Pieters et al. 2019; Levitan & Johnson 2020; Mpuangnan & Ntombela 2024).
The iterative process was another key factor, spurring dialogue, a culture of continuous reflection, and a sense of empowerment among participants. It ensured that the curriculum we developed was not only a product of diverse perspectives but also an evolving document that responded to the needs and insights of the group as a whole. This cyclical process of brainstorming, reflection, and revision echoes the principles of design thinking, which emphasize iteration as central to solving complex problems( Dam 2025). It is also important in educational contexts where power dynamics can often inhibit honest reflection( Johnson-Bailey & Cervero 1998).
As group members saw their ideas translated into tangible elements of the final curriculum, they felt an increased sense of pride and responsibility for the work. This shared ownership not only enhanced the quality of the curriculum but also created a ripple effect within the broader community of educators. The effect was contagious: Educators outside of the working groups began to actively engage with and adopt the curriculum, extending beyond the immediate participants. This finding is
70 Young Children
Summer 2026