25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Exploring Teacher Attitudes Regarding Student Voice and Pupil Participation in Primary Education
Renske de Leeuw, Jasmijn Maseland
Saxion UAS, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: de Leeuw, Renske;
Maseland, Jasmijn
It has been 35 years since the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified (CRC; United Nations, 1989). This convention protects the rights of children. Article 12 addresses specifically students' voices and participation: “Children have the right to be listened to and taken seriously in matters affecting their daily lives and that the child’s view is given due weight to the evolving capacities of the child”.
Under the terms of the CRC, governments must ensure that all children are actively included and listened to when decisions are made that affect the daily lives of children (United Nations, 1989). Schools are part of the daily lives of children and therefore, according to the CRC, teachers and school staff should also actively involve children in the decision-making process (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2021; Thompson, 2011). The daily school lives of children include what pupils will learn and how things are organized at school.
Article 12 states that “the child’s view is given due weight to the pupils’ age and capacity” (United Nations, 1989). This is mostly interpreted as age-appropriate activities to facilitate student voice and teachers, in the educational context, decide which suggestions are rejected and acted upon (Bron & Veugelers, 2014; Lundy, 2007). Providing guidelines to support the interpretation of age-appropriate or “given due weight” in decisions is challenging. There are significant developmental variations among children (Bron & Veugelers, 2014). Children’s capacities are not merely determined by development but also by life- and social experiences (Thomson, 2011).
However, there are multiple theoretical frameworks (e.g. Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001) which support researchers, practitioners and school staff in the understanding of what student voice and pupil participation entail and how this could translate to educational practices (de Leeuw et al., 2020; Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2021). An implementation report on the CRC shows that the level of implementation, regarding student voice and pupil participation, varies per country (UNICEF, 2012). Notwithstanding, the enactment of student voice and pupil participation also depends on determinants such as teachers' beliefs and attitudes (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022; Zorec, 2015) and teachers’ perceptions regarding which capacity and agency a pupil encompasses (Gillet-Swan & Sargeant, 2019; Huić, 2022). Research on teacher-related determinants and the enactment of student voice and pupil participation in specific is scarce. Existing materials regarding teacher attitudes and beliefs focus on general child rights. Research indicates that there is a discrepancy between positive teachers’ attitudes towards student voice and pupil participation and the enactment in the classroom (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022). Explanations for this discrepancy are that teachers’ responses on questionnaires are socially desirable (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021). Another explanation, which is provided in the literature, is that teachers lack the skills to implement student voice and pupil participation activities, which match their pedagogical and didactical visions (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022; Zorec, 2015).
The question is if and how student voice and pupil participation are realized at primary schools. To explore these questions and establish if there are relations and mediating effects between teacher determinants, attitudes and enactment, a reliable and valid instrument is critical.
The aim of our study is threefold: first, to develop and assess the reliability of a newly designed questionnaire which assesses teacher determinants concerning student voice and pupil participation in primary education, second, to explore what teacher attitudes are and if these attitudes differ from pupil age, and third to map and analyze how student voice and pupil participation are translated and enacted upon in Dutch primary education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA total of 90 primary school teachers participated voluntarily in this pilot study, data was collected from March to November 2023. A convenience sample technique was applied. Participants were contacted via pre-service teachers conducting an internship. All participants gave active consent to participate in our study.
Instrument
Development
A scoping review of related literature was conducted. Via content analysis, items were selected from existing teacher attitude questionnaires (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Bron et al., 2018; Huić, A., 2022; Karaman-Kepenekci, 2006; Ozturk & Doganay, 2017; Zorec, 2015). Most scales were focused on children’s rights education regarding the CRC in general and not specifically focusing on student voice and pupil participation (CRC, 1989). The selected items were rephrased and translated into Dutch.
Questionnaire
The Teacher Attitudes Questionnaire on Student Voice and Pupil Participation is a self-reporting digital questionnaire and consists of three components. The first component commences with active informed consent and questions about participants' backgrounds.
The second part of the questionnaire contains 16 statements assessing teachers' attitudes towards students' voices and whether pupils are capable of voicing their needs and wishes regarding educational and curriculum decisions. Example item: “Pupils are competent to actively think about suited learning activities”. Each statement is rated with a 5-point Likert scale, per level (in Dutch bouw): “early level” (kindergarten; age range 4 to 5 years), “middle level” (grade 1-3; age range 6 to 9 years) and “upper level” (grade 4-6; age range 9-12 years). These levels represent the three stages of primary education, which are commonly used in the Dutch primary education system to cluster grades.
The third part contains two components. The first component consists of 13 statements evaluating pupils' frequency of sharing their voices and participating in educational decisions. Each statement is rated per level with a 5-point Likert scale. The second component is a semi-structured inventory, collecting examples of student voice and pupil participation. Participants list which forms of pupil participation are implemented and specify per implementation which pupils participate, who the audience is, and enactment on the input.
The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s reliability per level.
Analyses
Descriptive statistics will be calculated from the teacher attitude scale and one-way within-subjects ANOVA will be conducted to assess if teachers' attitudes differ per level. The open responses in the third part of the questionnaire will be analyzed using content analysis to map forms of pupil participation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings of the analysis, regarding the reliability of the newly developed questionnaire, indicate that the Teacher Attitudes Questionnaire on Student Voice and Pupil Participation is reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha values ranging between .73 and .89 (values above .70 are considered sufficient). In addition, the preliminary analysis of the mean scores per level shows an increase towards the capabilities of pupils: early level M= 3.20, SD= .57, middle level M= 3.95, SD= .45 and upper level M= 4.26, SD= .49. This indicates that teachers’ attitudes are influenced by pupils' age and that the enactment of student voice and pupil participation will differ throughout grades. These findings are in line with empirical findings (Huić, 2022; Lansdown, 2005).
The preliminary findings request further analysis of the data and explore if there are correlations between teacher determinants and teacher attitudes concerning student voice and pupil participation in primary education. In addition, the psychometric properties of the questionnaire need to be further evaluated. Because the data is not yet fully analysed, it is not possible to report findings regarding the forms of pupil participation in Dutch primary schools. We intend to present and discuss the results of the pilot study and the validation data at the ECER 2024 because the next data collection is planned for February to June 2024.
ReferencesBanko-Bal, C., & Guler-Yildiz, T. (2021). An investigation of early childhood education teachers’ attitudes, behaviours, and views regarding the rights of the child. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00083-9
Bron, J., & Veugelers, W. (2014). Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1), 125-139.
Bron J., Emerson N, & Kákonyi, L. (2018). Diverse student voice approaches across Europe. European Journal of Education, (53), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12285
de Leeuw, R.R., Little, C., & Rix, J. (2020). Something needs to be said. Some thoughts on the possibilities and limitations of ‘voice’. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 101694. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101694
Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. (2021). Participation Framework: National Framework for Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making. Government of Ireland.
Gillett-Swan, J.K., & Sargeant, J. (2019). Perils of perspective: Identifying adult confidence in the child’s capacity, autonomy, power and agency (CAPA) in readiness for voice-inclusive practice. Journal of Educational Change, 20(3), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09344-4
Hart, R.A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essays no. 4. International Child Development Centre.
Huić, A. (2022). Children’s participation rights in schools—teachers’ beliefs and practices. Criminology & Social Integration, 30(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.31299/ksi.30.2.1
Karaman-Kepenekci, Y. (2006). A study of university students' attitudes towards children's rights in Turkey. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 14(3), 307-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181806778458095
Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
Lundy, L. (2019). A lexicon for research on international children’s rights in troubled times. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(4), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02704013
Ozturk, A., Doganay, A. (2017). Development of a Scale for the Attitude Towards Children’s Rights Education. Educational Process: International Journal, 6(3), 26-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2017.63.3
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chi.617
United Nations. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty series.
UNICEF (2012). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Study of Legal Implementation in 12 Countries. United Kingdom.
Thomson, P. (2011). Coming to terms with ‘voice’. In G. Czerniawski, & W. Kidd (Eds.), Student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide, 19–30. Emerald Group Publishing.
Zorec, M.B. (2015). Children’s Participation in Slovene Preschools: The Teachers’ Viewpoints and Practice. European Education, 47(2), 154-168, http://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2015.1039878
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Ethical Reflections on Interviews with Children as a Balancing Act - Implications for Children's Rights in Research and Professional Development
Katrin Velten1, Julia Höke2
1Alice Salomon University of Applied Science, Germany; 2Cath. University of Applied Science NRW, Germany
Presenting Author: Velten, Katrin;
Höke, Julia
When examining the participation of children in educational institutions, it is widely accepted that the children themselves should be included in the research, at least in a consultative manner. This is justified by children's rights and various considerations on how these rights can be implemented and acknowledged both in educational institutions and schools, as well as in the research itself (Lansdown & O'Kane, 2014; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).
The challenge that comes with exploring participation in educational settings and schools involves addressing how ‘good’ research with children can effectively capture both the perspectives of the children, and simultaneously meet essential ethical requirements regarding e.g. critical reflection of transparency of research aims, children´s ongoing informed consent, and degrees of children´s participation at different stages of the research process (Alderson & Morrow, 2020; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Mayne et al., 2016). The contribution focuses on exploring ethical challenges that arise in the phase of data collection. Based on these findings, a reflective tool has been developed to guide the planning and performing of reflective research with children (Velten et al., 2024).
The presented research is theoretically based on perspectives on three key motifs of research with children. The first key motif is the objective of ascertaining the children’s perspectives. This includes creating spaces for action within the research situation, acknowledging their various modes of expression, and appreciating the content-related impulses of the children (Clark & Moss, 2011; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Mayne et al., 2016). A second fundamental motif is the researcher’s aim and expectation to meet the research objectives. The importance of common quality criteria for qualitative research, including comparability of data and the intersubjective plausibility of the analysis, remains (Strübing et al., 2018). Additionally, the actions of researchers are guided by their own research questions and also by ideas about what should be discussed and done, for example, in interviews, taking into account the attention spans of the participants and the total time available within the institutional setting. Thus, the guiding principle of considering research-inherent principles also strongly influences actions in individual research situations (Spriggs & Gillam, 2017).
A third key motif becomes particularly relevant in institutionally framed research settings such as educational institutions and schools: the consideration of the conditions of the research field. This includes organisational conditions such as the available time for data collection and ensuring data protection, both of which are significant for securing access to the field. Furthermore, explicit and implicit expectations of the field regarding what research and researchers can/should achieve in terms of research-inherent goals also are crucial. Additionally, the actions of researchers can be situated within the broader context of considering children's rights, the well-being of the child, and child protection. This includes instances where children may be at risk of harm during the research situation or when information is conveyed to researchers that necessitates actions beyond the scope of the research to ensure the protection of the children (Velten et al., 2024).
When considering the responsibility of professional (adult) researchers in conducting ‘good’ research with children, these notions lead to the assumption, that researchers must perform a balancing act between these different key motifs both in planning the research project as well as in the situatively constructed research situations (Velten & Höke, 2023). The contribution explores these balancing acts by examining different apparently "unsuccessful" or “failing” situations in interviews with children. Practices and strategies for balancing demands and power dynamics were identified, highlighting disclosure of purported “failings” and the importance of ethical data collection.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe contribution is based on a re-analysis of selected sequences of interviews from two previous studies, each examining children's perspectives on the degrees of freedom afforded to them in terms of participation in institutional contexts (Höke, 2020; Velten, 2021). The first study, conducted in June and July 2016, involved seven interviews with 11 first graders following Fuhs´ (2012) Lifeworld Interview framework, as part of a school accompanying research project at a German participatory primary school (Höke, 2020). The interviews were conducted as a school tour, with the children tasked to show the interviewer the "places that are significant from their perspective." The relatively open research design allowed children to choose whether to participate alone, in pairs, or collectively, as well as the order in which different school locations would be visited. The interviews were videotaped and later transcribed based on the spoken content.
In the second study, conducted from March to November 2013 in German Kindergarten and primary schools, interviews with 22 five- to seven-year-old children were conducted using Fuhs' (2012) approach and the Mosaic Approach (Clark and Moss, 2011). These interviews took place approximately four months before and after starting school (Velten, 2021). At both data collection times, children were asked to take photos in advance of “actions or situations where they felt participating and competent”. The photos then formed the focal point of the interviews. All interviews were recorded on video to capture not only verbal but also facial, gestural, and body language expressions of the children. Interview transcripts were primarily based on spoken words, with additions regarding facial expressions, gestures, and body language enclosed in square brackets. Both previous studies were based on the research ethics considerations (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
Using a sequential analysis following Schütz et al. (2012), interview sequences were re-analysed under the described focus on the balancing act of professional researchers. Situations were selected which were previously marked as conflicting or unusable in terms of research questions, due to perceived unsuccessful communicative processes and were thus either not considered or not fully considered. This included sequences where, for example, non-response to interview questions, introduction and ignoring of topics, or refusal and (threatening) termination of the interview became visible. In total, 10 interviews were identified, each containing critical sequences. These sequences were re-analysed. Interpretive bias of the re-analysis was addressed through independent coding by the two authors and joint moderation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe re-analysis of selected interview sequences has revealed a spectrum of ad hoc practices, intricately tied to the perpetual balancing act undertaken by professional researchers (and children) during interviews. Interviewers employ diverse ad hoc practices to shape negotiations around topics, duration, and the pathways to engagement available, or not, to the interlocutors. These practices, categorized as either 'affirmation practices', 'ordering and structuring practices' or ‘practices around actual or threatened abandonment of the interview’, extend beyond mere interactional strategies intended to navigate the delicate equilibrium among the three emphasized key motifs in research with children; they, in themselves, generate or perpetuate assumptions of positions or roles between the interviewer and interviewee (Velten & Höke, 2023).
Upon reflection on the interview sequences, it becomes apparent that the seemingly perplexing actions of professional researchers gain clarity within the delicate balancing act among the three key motifs. The reflection highlights how complex the requirements for "appropriate" actions can be for researchers in a specific research situation. What we have sequentially analysed afterwards the original research projects unfolds simultaneously in the ad hoc research scenario, demanding ad hoc actions while concurrently balancing the three key motifs of research with children that we have pointed out. Based on these findings, we propose a reflective tool to offer guidance in comprehending both research designs and the actions of a professional researcher, as well as the decisions made in specific research situations (Velten et al., 2024). In this way, appropriateness in research practice can be regarded as a phenomenon situationally constructed in the balancing act between different guiding principles.
Furthermore, this re-analytical perspective on interactions between professional researchers and children provides points of reference for examining interactions in educational contexts.
ReferencesReferences
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook (2. ed. // Second edition). SAGE.
Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach (Second edition). ncb.
Fuhs, B. (2012). Kinder im qualitativen Interview: Zur Erforschung subjektiver kindlicher Lebenswelten. In F. Heinzel (Ed.), Kindheiten. Methoden der Kindheitsforschung: Ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge zur kindlichen Perspektive (2., überarbeitete Auflage, pp. 80–103). Beltz Juventa.
Höke, J. (2020). "Und die Kinderkonferenz, die haben wir abgeschafft" - Möglichkeiten kindlicher Beteiligung im Zusammenspiel von Handlungsstrategien der Erwachsenen und Kinderperspektiven einer partizipativ arbeitenden Grundschule. Die Deutsche Schule, 112(2), 229–244.
Lansdown, G. (2018). Conceptual Framework for Measuring Outcomes of Adolescent Participation. https://www.unicef.org/media/59006/file
Lansdown, G., & O'Kane, C. (2014). A Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating Children’s Participation: A 10-step guide to monitoring and evaluating children’s participation. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/me_toolkit_booklet_4_low_res1.pdf/
Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)formed views. Childhood, 19(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568211409078
Mayne, F., Howitt, C., & Rennie, L. (2016). Meaningful informed consent with young children: looking forward through an interactive narrative approach. Early Child Development and Care, 186(5), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1051975
Schütz, A., Breuer, A., & Reh, S. (2012). Sequenzanalysen von Kinder-Interaktionen: Zu den Möglichkeiten einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik. In F. Heinzel (Ed.), Kindheiten. Methoden der Kindheitsforschung: Ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge zur kindlichen Perspektive (2., überarbeitete Auflage, pp. 190–204). Beltz Juventa.
Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2017). Ethical complexities in child co-research. Research Ethics(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117750207
Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U., & Scheffer, T. (2018). Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 47(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2018-1006
Velten, K. (2021). Self-efficacy experiences in day care and primary school from the children’s perspective: A starting point for the reflection of didactic and methodological competences of adult educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X211051192
Velten, K., & Höke, J. (2023). Adults’ ad hoc practices in interviews with children - Ethical considerations in the context of adultness and generational ordering. Childhood, 30(1), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682221149615
Velten, K., Höke, J., & Walther, B. (2024). What the Hell is „Angemessenheit“ in der Forschung mit Kindern? Eine Annäherung an einen strapazierten Begriff. In A. Flügel, I. Landrock, J. Lange, B. Müller-Naendrup, J. Wiesemann, P. Büker, & A. Rank (Eds.), Grundschulforschung meets Kindheitsforschung. Reloaded. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung (Vol. 1). Klinkhardt.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Using Digital Technologies to reveal Student Views of Outdoor School Space: Methodological and Ethical Possibilities and Uncertainties
Pamela Woolner, Ahmed Kharrufa, Denise Lengyel, Alison Whelan
Newcastle University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Woolner, Pamela
Although there is agreement on the contribution that students make to the totality of the school environment (e.g. Gislason, 2010), user evaluations of school space often centre on teacher experiences (Frelin & Grannas, 2022). Further, outdoor spaces in schools are used much more by students than by teachers (Woolner et al., 2010) and, while assumptions are made about positive impacts on wellbeing and health, it is less clear how students actually feel about and use these spaces. Responding to such an oversight, this exploratory project, collaborating with England’s Department for Education (DfE), investigated the use of digital technology to understand how outdoor space is being perceived and used by students in a sample of secondary schools (students aged 11-16 or 11-18).
Digital approaches were developed to reveal student use and views. Three tools, which could be used in any combination, were trialled:
Tool 1: Online questionnaire
The aim was to collect views on specific outdoor locations but also to enable respondents to express ideas about other places. The questionnaire’s five outdoor locations included the entrance area, a sports area and three circulation/social spaces. Photographs of these locations were supplied by the schools and a series of questions were replicated for each location. The questionnaires were designed to be completed independently by students and were accessible for all ages.
Tool 2: PosterVote
PosterVote is a low-cost electronic voting system for communities and activists (Vlachokyriakos et al., 2014). The approach allows questions to be asked through a poster at a specific location. The system collects votes for each answer electronically, and the results can be downloaded using a mobile phone. Posters were designed in collaboration with the schools. The final structure of the poster was the same in each location and at each school.
Tool 3: QR codes
QR codes can be used to collect views at specific locations, but also enable more discursive commentary about the place. Codes were placed in the locations and scanned by students using their mobile phones. This directed them to a website which collected open text responses. The pupil could leave comments about the location and respond to previous comments linked to that location.
In this paper, we present our experiences of developing digital approaches, including a participatory approach with students in two schools, then trialling and evaluating these three tools across four schools. Our particular concern is to problematize the optimism of assumptions about student participation and to contribute to ongoing discussions of power in schools. We consider whether revealing more about student experiences enables ‘student voice’ in school decision-making, so empowering students (Coelho et al., 2022), or if instead this increased visibility of outdoor spaces, where students have traditionally had more agency (Holt, 2004), is extending the surveillance of schooling (Gulson and Symes, 2007) and is therefore disempowering.
We use our experiences with the students and school leaders when planning the digital approaches, the data we collected through the digital tools, and the tendency for the students to subvert our intentions. In common with other researchers (Gallagher, 2008; Holt, 2004) dealing with the practical reality of researching in schools, we recognise the complexity of power and discuss our positioning within the system: seeking to empower the students through offering communication tools while being beholden to school leaders for access and cooperation. The student responses can be seen as contributing, on the one hand, to increased understanding of their experiences, which could be beneficial for them if their views are acted on, but also demonstrating some resistance to heightened visibility and a desire to keep some privacy within the surveillance of schooling.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe worked with the DfE to establish four partner schools: two in northeast England (NE1 and NE2) and two in Birmingham (BM1 and BM2). Data were collected from headteachers, and school staff (including teachers, IT support and site management staff) through interviews and observations (during site visits and via video conferencing and email). Focus groups were conducted with students before and during trialling.
Initial inquiry
To investigate what approaches to collecting student views appeared viable for schools, we met headteachers and education and technology experts across all four schools. Three student focus groups were held at NE1 and NE2 in December 2022, focused on identifying questions about outdoor spaces and ideas on use of digital technology. These were run separately with students from Years 7-8, 9-11 and 12-13 (aged 11-13, 13-16 and 16-18) using site plans, visual prompts and, in the case of Years 7-8, a poster design session. The focus groups had three parts: (i) outdoor locations (dis)likes; (ii) digital technology use and options to gather opinions; (iii) development of poster designs.
Focus groups are useful in generating rich understandings of participants’ experiences (Gill et al, 2008: 293) and visual methods can be helpful (Woolner et al., 2010). Care was taken to conduct the focus groups in an art classroom known to most of the participants, with a known art teacher in the room. Data gathered through the focus groups (audio recordings of discussions; observer fieldnotes; annotated plans; poster designs) were analysed and the findings were used to inform development of the tools. The two northern schools were more actively involved in this, through the student focus groups and staff offering suggestions on the poster design and wording of the online questionnaire. All the schools provided photographs of locations for the questionnaire, and supplied additional information such as how it would be distributed.
Trialling tools (Feb – April 2022)
All four schools opted to trial the online survey and the posters, but only one school (BM2) chose to use the QR codes. The tools were mainly rolled out in stages to schools due to development issues and school requirements. An online link to their questionnaire was provided to each school, while the posters were either delivered in person or posted, and the QR codes were emailed to the school trialling these. In all schools, the questionnaires were made available at around the same time as the posters.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis project demonstrates the basic viability of using digital tools to generate data about student use and views of school outdoor spaces, therefore developing understanding of student experiences. Yet, the tools in use and the data they collected also reveal some methodological and ethical uncertainties. They confirm the importance of outdoor space to young people, and the possibilities for students to ‘express their social and cultural worlds within schools’ (Holt, 2004: 22), while simultaneously threatening to make these more private spaces of school more visible to staff.
Some of the ways that students subverted our intentions (voting low on the poster stars; failing to finish the questionnaire or adding joke answers; mainly ignoring the QR codes), are reassuring to ethical concerns about intrusion, suggesting that students still have agency to block our prying and resist ‘the spectre of unrelenting inspection and surveillance’ (Gulson and Symes, 2007: 105). Other researchers have noted these apparently limited resistances by students in school settings (Ralph and Levinson, 2019) and the challenges they can produce for researchers (Gallagher, 2008).
Herein lies the accompanying concern for our digital tools as their subversion results in methodological uncertainty: apparent threats to the validity of the data produced and the meaning that can be developed. Clearly this is problematic to a narrow view of ‘collecting’ views, but if the tools are understood more as ways to start conversations (Vlachokyriakos et al., 2014) than as producing pure data, then they have promise. However, to function in this way, the wider ecology of the school must be open to student collaboration and distributions of power. Our own experiences as researchers dealing with the partner schools revealed limits to power-sharing, but that need not mean that using the digital tools to include students in understanding outdoor spaces is always impossible.
ReferencesCoelho, C.; Cordeiro, A.; Alcoforado, L.; Moniz, G.C. (2022) Survey on Student SchoolSpaces: An Inclusive Design Tool for a Better School. Buildings, 12, 392
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2022). Teachers’ pre-occupancy evaluation of affordances in a multi-zone flexible learning environment: – introducing an analytical model. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30:2, 243-259.
Gallagher, M. (2008) ‘Power is not an evil’: rethinking power in participatory methods, Children's Geographies, 6:2, 137-150
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. Chadwick, B. (2008) Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204, 291–295
Gislason, N. (2010) Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research, Learning Environment Research, 13:127–145
Gulson, K.N. & Symes, C. (2007) Knowing one's place: space, theory, education, Critical Studies in Education, 48:1, 97-110
Holt, L. (2004). The ‘voices’ of children: de‐centring empowering research relations. Children's Geographies, 2:1, 13–27
Ralph, T. & Levinson, M. (2019) Survival in the badlands: anexploration of disaffected students’ uses of space in a UK secondary school, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40:8, 1188-1203
Vlachokyriakos, V., Comber, R., Ladha, K., Taylor, N., Dunphy, P., McCorry, P., Olivier, P. (2014) 'PosterVote: Expanding the Action Repertoire for Local Political Activism,' DIS 2014, June 21–25, 2014, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Clark, J., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U. and Wall, K. (2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design Learning Environments Research 13(1) 1-22.
|
