Conference Agenda

Introduction – Seeking and listening to student perspectives can be worthwhile since it provides unique insights into the complexities of teaching and learning. Despite the fact that students are increasingly recognised as primary stakeholders in education, the majority of studies continues to position students as mere information providers and therefore fails to provide them with more active roles (Pinter, Mathew & Smith, 2016). One of the areas where students have had few opportunities to express their perspectives, let alone be involved in decision-making, is teaching and learning. Especially the curriculum is rarely seen as a suitable arena for student voice initiatives (Brooker & MacDonald, 1999; Rudduck & Flutter, 2000). This systematic literature review provides an overview of studies which have gone beyond positioning students as subjects or information providers by recognising them as knowledgeable partners. Thus far, such studies either targeted traditional student council topics and/or focused on university students. This review, therefore, examines the few existing empirical studies which focus on how secondary and vocational education students are involved in co-creation and decision-making in the context of teaching and learning. We focus on how student voice is embodied as well as relevant factors for implementation and the impact of student voice projects on students’ personal development and school connectedness.

Methods – Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search in ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For each included study, references and citations were checked for additional relevant studies. Studies were included which focus on actively involving students in co-creation and decision-making and which go beyond influencing their individual learning processes. We discuss qualitative empirical studies which focus on 12-20 year-old students participating in student voice initiatives in the context of teaching and learning. In order to analyse the extracted data, content analysis in combination with the Action Research cycle and the Theoretical Domains Framework were used.

Results – The 15 included studies indicate that students were involved in various phases and were assigned multiple roles and responsibilities. Although students were involved in the planning phase in almost every study, participation was predominantly limited to advising. During the acting/observing phase, students had more profound roles and responsibilities. Many studies organised activities with the aim of engaging students as co-researchers. Students were least involved in reflecting and if they were involved at all, their role was limited to sharing their perspectives and experiences at the end of the project. Knowledge and skills were important factors for implementation. We also found that provoking radical shifts in social/professional roles and identities is not only a time consuming endeavour, but may result in all kinds of emotions. Many teachers had low levels of optimism or even concerns about inviting students to participate in educational development. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that initially student participation activities led to anxiety and chaos among teachers. Students were often hesitant at the start and lacked beliefs about their capabilities. However, as they got used to being more involved, their confidence grew. Teachers were vital in increasing students’ perceived competences by offering guidance, support, encouragement and insights. Apart from learning and practicing a wide range of skills, students’ sense of confidence, ownership and empowerment grew, which resulted in increased beliefs about their capabilities. Lastly, relationships between students and teachers improved.

Conclusions – We should look for ways to expand and improve the intensity, nature and quality of student voice activities. Students should be presented with various opportunities for taking diverse roles in each research phase. Future research should include working collaboratively with students in vulnerable positions as well as in more diverse school settings.

This conference paper is part of an ongoing investigation (The Fourth Impulse of Pedagogical Renewal in Spain: A case Study in Infant-Primary Schools in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, Madrid, Catalonia and Valencia, project I+d+i, PID2019-108138RB-C21, 2020-2023) whose objective is to study the processes of educational transformation of schools that, in an integrated and integral manner, propose a renewal of fundamental aspects that define them (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). The paper focuses on studying some issues related to democratic practice in a unique innovative school: a private (non-elitist) school self-managed by a group of teachers who have the occasional support of the families.

In this paper, we first explain what we mean by innovative schools, we then address some basic issues focused on the conceptualization of democratic practice in schools and, finally, in the conclusions, we analyse how this practice is implemented in the school under study.

The term “pedagogical renewal” is, as has been shown on several occasions (Costa, 2011; Esteban, 2016; Pericacho, 2016) is a complex and polysemic term that has a long history in Spain and that, internationally, has many similarities with the concept “educational renewal” (Goodlad, 1994; Carlson,2005). Our research team (Demoskole) has decided to define it as the direct opposite of traditional education in its classical conception (disciplinary and authoritarian with differentiated and hierarchical roles and a system of teaching based on pure transmission and the textbook) and of aseptic innovation that changes the forms and appearances but not the substance since it only hides the harsher expressions typical of uncomplicated] traditional pedagogy, replacing them for more friendly guises. In any case, innovative schools are characterized by: i) being centres with progressive educational goals (opposed to what is imposed by the market and the neoliberal way of thinking); ii) making use of active methodologies (opposed to fundamentally rote and acritical methodologies); iii) having an open and flexible organization of time and spaces; iv) teaching a curriculum that is as little compartmentalized as possible and conveyed through methodologies that integrate diverse knowledge; v) embodying educational roles that, despite being different, are not hierarchical, facilitate participation and foster trust; vi) implementing a transversal, qualitative, formative and continuous evaluation of the learning processes; vii) having shared leadership; viii) being clearly committed to participation and democratic practice; and ix) having a close relationship with the physical and social environment (Feu and Torrent, 2020; Feu et al., 2021; Feu and Torrent, 2021a; Feu and Torrent, 2021b).

The democratic and participatory issue, despite being presented as the eighth characteristic, is central to any innovative school – a democracy and participation that, like the other elements previously mentioned, can be graduated. In the case at hand, and following authors such as Fielding (2012), Mabovula (2009) and Santizo Rodall (2011), this graduation can be done through three key variables: a) frequency of the democratic practice (regularity of meetings aimed at making decisions on collective issues); b) democratic intensity (type and relevance of the aspects to be debated and agreed upon); and c) agents who are called on to participate (students, teachers, families and local agents or institutions), among others.

Abstract

Research indicates student voices are largely under-represented in the processes of curriculum reform (Flynn, 2021). When school students are invited to share their views on their experiences of curriculum, they often do not respond in large numbers or are only invited to do so from within classroom contexts, which may constrain their responses. This paper reports on our success using social media (SM) as a method to recruit Australian senior secondary student participants for a national online survey about their experiences of school history. Finding that this method attracted a high level of student participation, a demographically diverse sample and generated rich data, we advocate for using social media as a key element of survey methods for adolescents. In Australia, as in other international settings, the role of students is often seen to sit within the nano site of curriculum making, that is within the context of classrooms or other learning spaces and in relation to teachers (Priestly, 2021). Accessing students and giving them a platform to have conversations about their experiences of curriculum outside of this nano site, expands possibilities for including students as curriculum actors across the macro and meso sites of curriculum making (Priestly, 2021)(Priestley et al., 2021). Through the dissemination of research findings that foreground their voices, students are valued as curriculum actors that contribute to curriculum discourse at the state and national levels, which can encourage other curriculum actors to engage students in a wider range of curriculum making activities across sites. The paper explores how this student-centred approach opens the possibilities for curriculum inquiry researchers in other learning areas and jurisdictions, as well as across education research more broadly.

It also engages with a topical area emerging from research methods literature worldwide. The popularity of the student surveys to capture student perspectives has been widely documented, both in Australia and internationally, as an effective way of measuring student engagement to inform whole school and curriculum reform (Campbell-Phillips, 2020; Jensen, 2011; Mayes, 2020). The global crisis in education, exposed by the impact of the pandemic across the world made it more urgent for researchers to recognise a significant shift in the nature of student-centred research and develop the capacity to access curriculum conversations with an already difficult to reach group (Dusek, Yurova, & Ruppel, 2015). Research that values and responds to student voices is also vital at a time when young people are feeling isolated and disconnected from their schooling following Covid-19 related disruptions.

Recruitment via SM is increasingly popular, however, a lack of ‘empirical literature investigating the ethics of engaging participants via SM’ (Hokke, Nicholson, & Crawford, 2020, p. 12) deters researchers from taking up the opportunity, particularly for the recruitment of young people (Mackenzie et al., 2021). Not without its challenges and limitations, the generative experience we had using SM to recruit young people of their own volition prompted us to ask: What methodological diversity can the use of social media bring to educational research that looks to represent student voice? We address this question by using our online survey project that investigated possible reasons for declining enrolments in senior secondary History subjects as a case study. The paper outlines the methodological approach taken and evaluates the efficacy of utilising Instagram and Twitter as sites for both recruiting and reporting back to students. Despite the context being Australian, we argue SM has potential to support student-centred methodological approaches in ways that are globally relevant, innovative and inclusive. We contribute to literature that assesses the potential of recruitment via SM while offering unique insight into the possibilities for empowering students as research participants.