The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft

Duncan Rose Research Design

Student Voice in ESL Curriculum Design

Introduction

Student voice (SV) research (Fielding 2001; Flutter and Rudduck 2004; Mitra 2008) has gained prominence through the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child (1989) and local government initiatives such as “Every Child Matters” in the UK (DfES 2003). In its purest form it claims to be a democratic, empowering tool with which students develop leadership skills and take control of the levers of power in their school to improve localised situations (MacBeath et al 2003; McIntyre et al 2005). SV has focussed on issues such as bullying and bureaucratic procedures. However, little SV research has been undertaken on co-constructed curriculums in the English as a Second Language (ESL) sector due to the complex issues involved in cross-cultural communication. This paper asserts that SV can be utilised as an emancipatory tool to develop critical thinking skills while altering an ESL curriculum to fit the needs and interests of the students. It sets out a case for the use of SV, by examining its merits and challenges, and establishes a framework for its use in a specified context.

Literature Review

i) Definition

SV encompasses “activities that encourage reflection, discussion, dialogue and action on matters that primarily concern students but also by implication school staff and the communities they serve” (Fielding 2004:199). Specific definition of SV is difficult to establish because it “is not a fixed concept as it is constantly evolving through dialogue and interaction” (Cheminais 2008:5). However, the majority of authors agree that SV’s goal is to give youth the opportunity to make decisions that will shape their lives and those of their peers (Levin 2000; Fielding 2001; Mitra 2008). Teachers are consistently engaged in collecting SV data, as in its widest sense, SV includes every way students are allowed to or encouraged to offer their views (Flutter and Rudduck 2001:81).Therefore, SV methods are diverse, although the emphasis remains on students being heard and their opinions utilised by educators and researchers to understand their perspectives. The extent to which their views are used to formulate policy varies according to institutional discretion (David 2007).

Fielding (2006) establishes that the terms “student voice” and “pupil voice” are in effect different. “Pupil” is more widely used to refer to pre-teens and “student” is used for teenage students and older. For the duration of this essay the term “student voice” (SV) will be used. Equally, it is important to note the distinction between SV research and practice (Fielding 2004:201) in which SV research methodology consists of a diverse range of methods which allow students to not only be heard but also to engage in data collection. This essay will focus primarily on SV research.

1


ii) Continuums of SV Engagement

Depths of SV engagement require clarification owing to distinctions between “pupil consultation” and “pupil participation” (Flutter and Rudduck 2004). Consultation is the act of inviting student’s contributions to bring something meaningful to discussions with leaders of educational establishments. However, in consultation students give opinions upon invitation through a constraining medium selected by the establishment.

Conversely, student participation suggests that students “should be given an active and direct involvement in school matters at some level… (becoming members) of a community, in which pupils are valued and respected contributors” (Flutter and Rudduck 2004:5). This role assumes the ability to influence and change not present in consultation as it “provides students with the opportunity to think for themselves” (Cheminais 2008:6) and enables students to have more control over the medium through which they deliver their message.

Consultation in SV refers to Lansdown’s (2005) lowest level of SV engagement.

1) Consultation – where adults elicit student perspectives2) Participation – where children are given the opportunity to become actively involved3) Self-initiation – where students are empowered to take action

Alternatively, Mitra (2005) suggests the following hierarchy:

1) Being heard2) Collaborating with adults3) Building capacity for leadership

The differing terminology appears semantic but has deeper significance. SV is connected to an emancipatory philosophy that places students in a position to take control of their learning. Therefore, participation indicates the opportunity to take part whereas collaboration implies student/researcher equality. Building capacity for leadership goes further than “self-initiation” in securing a libertarian, emancipatory philosophy for SV as students not only shape their present world but develop their future one.

Fielding (2004:201), taking cues from Hart (1997) and Lansdown (1995), suggests that SV practice should be differentiated from SV research and indicates 4 stages to SV research:

i. Students as data sourceii. Students as active respondentsiii. Students as co-researchersiv. Students as researchers

Fielding subdivides the role of student as researcher in order to show the stages that allow the students to progress to autonomy. Fielding (2004) explains this division in terms of benefits to the student. When students act as data sources they become the recipient of a more informed pedagogy as teachers have access to students’ perspectives. However, their

2


views are not necessarily sought; they are information banks which the researcher utilises. Students are tools gaining no tangible skills and having limited involvement.

Active respondents become “discussants rather than recipients of current approaches to teaching and learning” (Fielding 2004:201). The teacher commits to engaging in active discussion with the students. As a result, students feel a greater sense of fulfilment during the consultation process. As co-researchers, students engage in a partnership, in which “teacher and student roles are not equal [but] they are moving in an egalitarian direction” (Fielding 2004:201). The researcher sets boundaries and negotiates with students the area to be researched, the commitment of students being essential to success. The researcher’s role changes to a listening role in which they lead dialogues, training and developing the students. Both researcher and student are in “exploratory mode” and the egalitarian nature of students as researchers is defined as a true partnership (Fielding 2004). However, the student has supplanted the researcher to take an initiating role. Students identify the area to research; they take responsibility for the interpretation of data and the format and delivery of the results. The researcher serves in a support capacity, the dialogue being student rather than researcher led.

These SV “continuums” can be truncated by localised situations. For example, in communities where students are rarely consulted, SV projects begin at an earlier stage of the continuum than those with an established culture of student consultation. Students from cultures that have denied SV beyond the “data source” stage will need scaffolding and support in order to transcend the tiers and develop the autonomy required for the capacity for leadership (Mitra 2005).

iii) Benefits

a) New Perspectives

SV not only improves institutions but ensures that participants learn from the experience (Cheminais 2008; Flutter and Rudduck 2004; Mitra 2004). SV improves pedagogy as “researchers must recognise the educational implications of producing knowledge, in order to take responsibilities for the pedagogies unwittingly operating in their scholarship” (Cairns 2009:235). Indeed, the presence of student researchers may act to reinforce the norms of good teaching (Bragg 2007:351). This concept of researchers seeking to engage with students in a constructive way to gain further perspectives on pedagogical practice is at the heart of “new wave student voice” in which youths become active research participants instead of passive objects of study (Fielding 2004). One advantage is the ability to understand the students and the way they think in a meaningful way. Students are expert witnesses in the process of school reform (Rudduck 1999) and SV is a means to “a rich but often untapped understanding of processes and events” (Rudduck and Flutter 2000:82). Students possess unique insights and perspectives which adults cannot fully replicate without partnerships (Mitra and Gross 2009; Cheminais 2008) and which enable teachers to help them achieve their personal goals more effectively.

3


b) Channelling Creativity

Students are naturally observant and often “use their insights to devise strategies for avoiding learning” (Flutter and Rudduck 2000:82). One solution is to harness students’ powers of observation and give them channels to pro-actively change systems and pedagogies. This concept is supported by the assertion that pupil feedback on teaching has the “triple effect of refining teacher’s practice, improving students’ engagement and raising awareness of the learning process (Jeffrey 2001; Flutter and Rudduck 2004; Lodge 2005; Whitty and Wisby 2007).

Building capacity for leadership may also re-engage students in the school community (Fielding 2001; Levin 2000). It could lead to increased youth attachment to schools, which in turn correlates with improved academic performance (Mitra 2004). Students involved in SV research may also develop better emotional skills and learn to manage relationships, both intra-student and student-teacher, more effectively (Davis et al 2006).

c) Emancipatory Tool

SV in its most emancipatory form has the ability to shift the dynamic of power in institutions. It can alter the “dominant power imbalances between adults and young people (Cook-Sather 2006:366). This can lead to students engaging in democratic processes more effectively. Ellsworth (1992:107) draws attention to the concept of institutions confronting the “power dynamics inside and outside of our classrooms [that make] democratic dialogue impossible”. This in turn can lead to the potential for students to embrace the “political potential of speaking out on their own behalf” (Lewis 1993:44). Ultimately, this leads to more engagement with democratic processes outside of educational establishments as SV work “acknowledges and argues for rights as active participants – as citizens – in school and beyond it” (Cook-Sather 2006:366).

iv) Challenges

a) Entrenching Power

Despite SV’s laudable aspirations some of the methodology’s proponents have suggested that it has been cynically hijacked by some establishments to further their agendas while giving tokenistic value to the SV projects they instigate (Robinson and Taylor 2007:12). Others refer to SV as a “toxic makeover” because in spite of rhetoric, students remain “objects of elite adult plans” (Gunther and Thomson 2007:181). Fielding (2004:200) suggests that some efforts which are “benign but condescending” or “cynical and manipulative” may keep students passive and reduce the power of their voice. This occurs in two instances:

1) Where SV is used to benefit organisations and not students2) Where the students’ voice is given a forum but dismissed

Instead of dissipating power differentials in schools SV can reinforce them. We “might be presiding over the further entrenchment of existing assumptions and intentions using pupil

4


voice as an additional mechanism for control” (Fielding 2001:100). While this may seem cynical, it corresponds with an increased acceptance of SV by educational establishments. This cynical acceptance is occasionally a covert means of controlling students which masks “the “real” interests of those in power” (Bragg 2007:344). Managers who seek school improvement are likely to set targets and view SV as one way of reaching goals. However, target setting is “hierarchical, unidirectional and so severely focussed it tends to lose contact with the values base that gives it meaning and legitimacy” (Fielding 2004:302). This concern to achieve targets overrides the integrity of SV and focuses everything on outcomes. This in turn results in student voice becoming “managed freedom” as opposed to “expressive freedom” (Fielding 2004).

b) False Assumptions

School authorities often assume that young people wish to be placed in a position of responsibility, a “pre-existing will to participate” which SV “reflects rather than constructs” (Fielding 2004). Managers believe that students’ subjectivity, once developed in “happier directions will serve the interests of the school” (Bragg 2007:348). Thus, what was meant to be an emancipatory programme has become reinforces the managements dominion over students (Francis and Lorenzo 2002; Fielding 2001).

Alternatively, some managers assume that students wish to participate in research to improve systems when in reality they feel that the school has given them nothing. Such feelings may lead to managers assuming that those who chose not to participate are “defiant, deviant or in denial” (Bragg 2007:354).

c) Dismissal and Disillusionment

Cook-Sather (2006:368) opines that “it is very difficult to learn from voices we don’t want to hear”. This can lead to a situation in which “if you talk and people don’t listen, you don’t want to talk anymore” (Mitra 2001 cited in Cook-Sather 2006:368). Therefore, SV programmes must avoid hidden agendas, set realistic expectations and act upon students’ opinions to effect meaningful change. This includes avoiding the dismissal of voices that are considered “too strident, too offensive or too irresponsible” leading to things of importance being overlooked (Fielding 2004:303).

Some individuals who have difficulty expressing views owing to factors such as age and special education needs and questions remain over the extent to which children and young people have the competency to be consulted (Hill 2005). Dangers arise when there is a power differential between students and researchers and students’ views are dismissed (Wyness 1999). Such dismissals go against the spirit of SV and leads students to question the value of participating with adults. Conversely, there is a danger of patronising students or over-mining the rich seam of knowledge in SV. In these instances SV “becomes decorative, something which an institution can sound as a sign of its progressive nature while offering no real pedagogical improvement” (Cook-Sather 2006:367).

5


d) Representation

Equally important is which students represent the SV of the school and if these students, who are “clearly well served by the establishment, serve the interests of those less well served” (Silva 2001:98). If a speaker’s location is held to be “epistemically significant” (Alcoff 1991:7) then we can only “hesitantly speak on behalf of others significantly unlike ourselves because we lack, not only understanding, but the means to understand those whose interests and causes we would represent” (Fielding 2004:299-300).

Post-structuralist theory has drawn attention to the complexity of multi-layered and contextually reflective identity. “All voices within the classroom are not and cannot carry equal legitimacy, safety and power” (Ellsworth 1992:108). Nor can it be assumed that given the mediating effect of language that the voice of another is transparent and can be interpreted correctly (Orner 1992). Therefore, according to post-structuralist critique, the notion of securing and understanding all students’ voices across time and contexts is flawed. Ultimately, “so long as an undifferentiated notion of SV is assumed or valorised, there is a significant danger that issues of race, gender and class are sidelined and in that process of presumed homogeneity the white, middle-class view of the world conveniently emerges as the norm” (Fielding 2004:302). This is particularly true when SV is used “to maximize the potential of the already advantaged” (Hallgarten 2000:18).

SV can therefore become counter-productive as it may well be silencing specific groups of children and parents (Vandenbroeck and Bie 2006:127). However, SV involvement is not exclusively for proficient students as lower-achievers can make significant contributions when entering whole-heartedly into the SV process (Tsafos 2009). Even if a representative sample of students is used, power equations will be at play, as not all students share the same views as those who speak out while some are more willing to speak out than others (Cheminais 2008:5-6) and it is hard not to reduce students’ comments and insights to a monolithic, invariable experience (Silva and Rubin 2003:2). Additional concerns arise from the maturity of groups whose self-expression may not be in an acceptable form.

e) Absence of Criticality

Those who choose to implement SV programmes have a particular epistemological and social outlook. They tend to be “attracted somewhat uncritically to the notion of pupil voice purely because of the traditional position of pupils as powerless” (Whitty and Wisby 2007:313). However, in private fee-paying institutions students will often “vote with their feet” if they are unhappy. Such institutes operate policies of engagement with customers to increase customer satisfaction. Student discontent may be exacerbated in institutes when SV leaves the school open to criticism from parents who feel the school is unsure how or what to teach.

6


v) Curriculum Design

a) ESL Environments

Negotiated curriculums in ESL contexts are often ruled-out owing to difficulties gaining consensus from diverse groups of multi-ethnic students with different perceptions of pedagogy and diverse needs relating to their educational background. Semantic translations from a second language and differing cultural interpretations may also lead to further divergence from the SV data’s intended message. In ESL environments cultural gaps exacerbate the divide between “native” teachers and “non-native” students, particularly in contexts where the concept of democratic participation may be alien to the student or generate the potential to undermine the perceived intellectual authority of the teacher/researcher.

b) Current Practice

Curricula identify general objectives, outcomes and skills to be covered (Brooker and McDonald 1999:84). They are designed by key stakeholders in reference to policy documents developed by those in positions of intellectual authority and deliberately favour their views and perspectives. The curriculum development movement of the 1970s suggested that making curricula “relevant” would appeal to students. However, in reality it reflected adult’s perspectives of what was meaningful and appealing (Flutter and Rudduck 2000:83-84). Consequently, curriculum design has marginalized student voices (Brooker and McDonald 1999; Dyson 1995) and learners’ opinions are sought after significant curricula decisions have been made by those in positions of power (Aronowitz and Giroux 1993). “If learner input is sought at all during curriculum making, it may be solicited during the trial or pilot stage” after the majority of work has been carried out by experts (Brooker and McDonald 1999).

Curricula are designed to educate but should also engage, they can cover all the required points of a syllabus but ignore students’ needs if they are not consulted. When learners are not engaged in the development process there is an increased chance of them responding negatively to curriculum changes, using their collective power as a class to resist or subvert innovations through non-engagement (Flutter and Rudduck 2000:83-84).

In ESL curriculums SV ostensibly occurs in needs analysis which is undertaken to tailor a pre-determined course to the learning needs and styles of individual groups. Despite this paean to SV, curriculum decisions are based on teacher expertise, availability of resources and texts and less on the needs of the students (Brooker and McDonald 1999:84). Themes, topics and points of instruction are selected by the instructor or dictated by a selected textbook with little reference to local context or students’ culture. Despite stakeholders believing they are acting in the interest of learners, one can ask “whose interests are being served and whose excluded” (Cherryholmes 1987:311).

In curriculum development stakeholder’s discourses “are implicitly arranged into a hierarchy of influences based on power relationships” (Mac an Ghaill 1992:229), in which students tend

7


to be marginalised stakeholders. When changes are implemented it is often based on a positivist, technicist approach i.e. “how” to change the curriculum rather than “why”. Ostensibly, curricula are designed to serve learners but their preferences are marginalised and opinions unsought. Consequently, there should be “significant student involvement and the valuing of student questions, input and reflections in curriculum making” (Brooker and Macdonald 1999:86).

c) Types of Curricula

Co-operation between students and teachers in co-constructing curricula is referred to as “negotiating the curriculum” (Boomer 1982 cited in Thornton and Chapman 2000). However, this concept does not abdicate responsibility from academic staff; instead it seeks to enhance the curriculum to fit the learner (Thornton and Chapman 2000).

Meighan (1988:36-38) identifies three negotiated curricula:

1. Consultative Curriculum –an imposed programme with regular opportunities for learner consultation. The teacher reflects on feedback and modifies the curriculum accordingly.

2. Negotiated Curriculum – the degree of power sharing increases and what emerges is “an agreed contract as the nature of the course of study to be undertaken”. The negotiation is an “attempt to link the concerns and consciousness of the learners with the world of systematic knowledge and learning”.

3. Democratic Curriculum –a group of learners write, implement and review their own curriculum.

This categorisation establishes the importance of students being respected enough to be consulted (Rudduck and Flutter 2004:84). The majority of ESL curriculums are nominally consultative in nature, as democratic ESL syllabi are difficult to establish owing to linguistic/cultural barriers and a diverse range of needs. Central to the role of the negotiated curriculum is the idea that courses will be committed to the involvement of students at all stages of the development process (Playle 1995:219).

d) Seeking Student Input

When curriculum decisions are made based on the needs of the students and “tempered with humane values rather than narrowly technocratic or bureaucratic concerns”, the decisions made will be more effective and appropriate (Kemmis 1986:118). One reform strategy involves capitalising on knowledge and interests, and involving students in determining goals (Levin 1994). If students already desire engagement then the issue is how to engage them. As the student is the end user it makes sense to seek their input in the product’s construction (Cook-Sather 2007:350).

Using students’ socio-cultural backgrounds in ESL curriculum design can be problematic owing to their diversity. However, in some contexts uniformity of background, socio-economic

8


group and factors such as age and motivation ensure a greater chance of consensus. Teachers should draw on the cultural resources of their students, their languages, histories, experiences and voices in order to integrate what is taught in school to the realities of everyday life. Thus avoiding favouring “those with a language and culture similar to the adults in the school” (Giroux 1999).

Curricula are best founded upon the cultural knowledge and social practices that validate the experiences students bring, “so as to give students an active voice in an institutional setting that traditionally attempts to silence them by ignoring their cultural capital” (Aronowitz and Giroux 1993:128).Student input could contribute to a more effective and mutually satisfying curriculum if students play an active role in the construction of learning that becomes meaningful to them on a variety of levels (Thornton and Chapman 2000; Grundy 1987). This concept of negotiated curricula is consistent with SV’s tenants of consultation, collaboration and social justice as “young people are citizens whose rights to participate in decisions that affect them are daily violated in schools” (Thomson 2007 cited in Cook-Sather 2006:366). Erikson and Schultz (1992) claim that the “systematic silencing” of SV is consistent with authority structures in schools and a consequence of methodological preferences for “positivistic research techniques”.

By means of authentic student participation in which students assume a “proactive role in the planning, implementation and evaluation of their own learning” (Cumming 1994:42) we have the power to redress the inequitable situation in which students are designated the “least able and least powerful member of the educational community” (Fielding 1999:21). Therefore, learner negotiated curriculums are a better “fit” for students and promote participation, leading to a learner focussed school (Smyth 2005). Additionally, Young (1999:463) argues that student involvement in curricula has a role to play in society as it is linked “to ideas about the kind of citizens and parents we want our young people to become”. This supports the concept of SV as a methodology championing children’s rights.

ALL CHECKED

Context and Rationale

Singapore is a multi-lingual, multi-cultural country with 200,000 secondary school students, of which 1% attend the British Council Singapore (BCS) for enrichment lessons. There is due to:

1) A High pressure academic environment exacerbated by limited career potential for low-achieving students within the micro-state (Heng 2001)

2) “Singlish” being widespread and perceived as detrimental to career prospects by parents and employers (Khong Yiu Lan 2004)

3) Immigration policies leading to an influx of foreign nationals needing assistance to negotiate the exam-orientated education system (Gopinathan 2001)

Ministry of Education (MOE) teachers are Singaporean and employ “Singlish” further fossilising errors (Pakir 1994:76). This is exacerbated by home environments in which a

9


language other than English is spoken or in which both parents may speak “Singlish” (Khong Yiu Lan 2004:43).

Students study for Cambridge O-levels, marked in the UK. Consequently, there is an emphasis on the use of British-English. Parents send their children to BCS with aspirational hopes of instilling British-English, raising their child’s examination grades and improving their employment potential. BCS provides 2 hours of English instruction for 40 weeks of the year. Courses are designed and written by teachers who have an EFL background, although some have worked in MOE schools. These courses, written by mid-career, European teachers, are aimed at Asian-teens and and two disconnects are identifiable:

1) Topics – Many are Anglo-centric with materials harking back to the writers’ own school experiences (Flutter and Rudduck 2000)

2) Content and Methodology – Teachers are unsure of MOE requirements and how to effectively teach the skills required because of their predominantly EFL background (Brooker and McDonald 1999)

Student numbers at BCS have increased however materials have become increasingly out-dated and out-of-touch with students’ needs. In 2010 the Singaporean government redeveloped the English curriculum, bringing in media literacy and critical thinking. One approach to re-develop the curriculum would be a negotiated ESL syllabus, collaborating with students. The students act as a bridge between the two systems by identifying areas which they have difficulty with and suggesting motivating and appropriate topics for teenage, Singaporean students (Brooker and McDonald 1999). Thus, re-establishing the students in a role which ensures their input influences course content and design.

BCS teachers are distanced from the local context in three ways:

1) Nationality (mostly European)2) Age3) EFL backgrounds i.e. used to teaching EFL students with TEFL techniques

One way to reduce these “distances” would be to collaborate with students as co-researchers (Fielding 2004). This would allow the socio-cultural perspective of the students to be incorporated into the syllabus thus avoiding favouring the culture of the BCS teachers (Giroux 1999). A negotiated curriculum could increase student ownership of the programme, increase teacher’s awareness of topics of interest and increase focus on the areas that students perceive as their weaknesses. This may lead to an increase in student registration and greater customer satisfaction (Flutter and Rudduck 2004).

Additionally, a negotiated curriculum may raise interest levels in classes with low-energy students (Whitty and Wisby 2007). Singaporean students are sent to enrichment classes and cross-curricular activities (CCAs) after school, some arriving at BCS after 10 hours of tuition. Low-energy classes can be frustrating for teachers and demotivating for students especially if neither topic nor content meet their requirements. Developing a course geared to their needs and interests could increase performance and participation.

10


Singapore is known as a “benevolent dictatorship”, in which democratic principles are “overlooked”. The addition of critical thinking skills to the new syllabus reflects the government’s awareness of inadequacies in students’ cognitive development. SV research at BCS may encourage a democratic setting where views can be expressed openly and discussed (Kirby 2001:74). Student participation is superficially used in the top-down MOE system through schemes such as ‘student-prefects’ but SV has not been considered to any meaningful extent. Consequently, Singaporean students fall into the lower tiers of SV continuums who could be moved beyond their traditional role as “data source” towards a co-researcher role.

Equally, BCS offers “no spaces…where staff and students meet one another as equals...in the shared undertaking of making meaning of their work together” (Fielding 2004:309). Therefore, a SV programme will not only make students aware of BCS’s desire to make them active participants in curriculum construction but give them a chance to demonstrate “capacity for leadership” (Mitra 2005), develop leadership, research and critical thinking skills and enable them to understand how democracy can shape their world (Gopinathan 2001:3). However, this absence of a shared space means that any SV project will be long term owing to the cultural shift required to establish greater communication between staff and students.

Pupils may also feel “a stronger sense of commitment to the school and to the task of learning; and commitment can lead to enhanced effort and enhanced levels of attainment” (Rudduck and Flutter 2000:82). Additionally, skills learnt through student research – teamwork, communication, enterprise, reflexivity about learning and self – are needed to compete in the new knowledge economy making the students more marketable upon leaving school (Bragg 2007:353).

ALL CHECKED

Research Design

1. Introduction

Ten secondary one (S1) students (age 12-13) will undertake the research as they will have had exposure to the new syllabus, materials and methods used in MOE schools. A one year timescale will allow for evidence collection, data analysis and meetings with students to provide teachers with data to rewrite the 40 lessons comprising the S1 syllabus. A budget of $20,000 SGD will be assigned for materials and writing costs and to ensure adequate training and materials for students undertaking the research.

The SV research process will be cyclical in nature to ensure that data collected is not misinterpreted. One year will allow time “to build a climate in which both teachers and pupils feel comfortable working together on a constructive review of aspects of their school” (Barratt and Hacking 2009). This duration is required as “changes in schools do not occur because of ad hoc projects but because of new structures and new ways of thinking about the internal workings of the institution” (Watson and Fullan 1992:219).

11


There are several ethical issues to consider when working with young people.

a. Gaining Consentb. Ensuring viewpoints are heardc. Right to Withdrawd. Representative Demographice. Suitable support and trainingf. The right to silence

These will be dealt with in the appropriate sections of the research design outline.

The emergent nature of SV research means that projects start with research aims and questions instead of a fully determined research design (Barratt and Hacking 2009:376). Therefore, it is more practical to develop a framework to inform meaningful collaboration with the students as opposed to top-down dictates driven by a well-meaning management keen to gain results. Methods and methodologies should not be pre-determined as suggestions by the students will allow the design to evolve to fit the following questions outlined by the researcher:

a. Which topics are of interest to Singaporean students?b. Which aspects of language and skills do students require greater focus on?c. How do they like to learn?

2. Consent

In dealing with young adults it is imperative that informed consent is achieved (Farrell 2005; Flewitt 2005; Ford 2007). In SV both student and parental consent must be gained. Singaporean parents over-extend their children, signing them up for activities which they later cancel owing to time constraints. This “assumed consent” (Heath et al 2004) may lead to issues such as withdrawal later in the project. It is therefore important to ensure children’s “genuine” consent is gained (Kirby 2001:76). Additionally, genuine consent often confirms the student’s “willingness” upon which the success of the project is likely to hinge (Alderson 2005).

S1 students will be invited to a voluntary session outlining the research project to ensure equality of opportunity to participate (Barratt and Hacking 2009:375). The project will be explained in an age-appropriate fashion with pre-prepared documents outlining the risks and responsibilities. Students will be fully informed of the goals of the project, the projected time-line and that the project will occur outside of class time. Students will be given bilingual consent forms and information packs detailing the research project for their parents to ensure that they are informed in their native language (Kirby 2001). The information pack should be written in child appropriate language with a supplementary letter outlining the project for parents.

12


Ten students will be selected; the remainder kept in reserve to replace any students who withdraw. This group must be “representative” as there are “dangers that children are treated as a homogenous group and diversity among children is masked” (Waller 2006 cited in Dockett et al 2009). Roberts and Nash (2009) draw attention to the importance of avoiding working with students who:

We wish to hear (Black-Hawkins 2005) We know to be co-operative (Monahan 1999) Are articulate (Hadfield and Hawe 2001) Can produce a model report (Roberts and Nash 2009)

Working with “non-conformist” students can enhance results by offering differing perspectives and giving students a greater sense of self-worth as well as being more representative of the student body. However, it is not without challenges and risks concerning the ability to “go the distance” in the research project.

Ten teachers and the level head responsible for maintenance of the S1 material will be briefed on their involvement early in the year. The senior teacher will lead on the project. An initial team meeting will cover aspects of ethics including confidentiality and the importance of being reliable and valid. Students and teachers will be made aware of all aspects of the project in detail including project duration.

Students will be offered the chance to withdraw from the project. Those who stay will hand-in a consent form covering the first 10 weeks of participation. Informed consent as an on-going process is important as SV is a negotiated construct and the project may alter over time (Flewitt 2005; Hill 2005). It is important that clear lines of communication are maintained to update students in real-time (Dockett et al 2009). Consent forms and briefing sessions will be revisited at 10 week intervals to ensure that students are informed of progress, their rights and ability to withdraw from the project.

When obtaining consent it is important to notice verbal and non-verbal signals given by students. This assumes a degree of psychological knowledge on the part of the researcher but may reduce the number of students who half-heartedly join the project (Dockett and Perry 2005). Some students actively choose not to take part in research particularly if it occurs in private space and time (Kirby and Bryson 2002). Therefore, care must be taken to ensure students are nominating themselves to be researchers (Dockett et al 2009).

The primary incentive for students’ involvement will be developing research skills. Limited incentives are important as privileges attached to the involvement in SV programmes may lead to tension between the appropriate recognition of students work, and the creation of new elites within the school (Bragg 2007:353). This will be partially mitigated by the offer of participation to all students. However, there is the danger of creating a new ‘elite’ within the school and the offer of research skills as a reward may not placate parents whose focus is solely on academic results.

3. Research Methods & Data Gathering13


The research team will meet weekly. Once students have been selected, an analysis of their class times will determine a schedule to maximise attendance.

In training sessions students will:

A. Explore their understanding of the curriculum and skills required to pass the Singaporean O-level.

B. Plan how they could discover which aspects of the syllabus students are experiencing difficultly with

C. Learn how to research and draw conclusions about the topic preferences of students.

These goals will be outlined as follows (Roberts and Nash 2009:179):

1. What do I want to change?2. What do I need to find out?3. How can I find this out?4. How will I organise my findings?5. How will I make sense of what I have learned?6. How can I tell people what I have learned?7. How can I help my school to act on my findings?

To equip students with the necessary research skills, they will undergo a period of training designed to empower them to make the necessary decisions to determine methodology and the construction of instruments (Bragg 2007:349).

Workshops will be given on data collection including questionnaires, interviews and survey techniques. The students will also be instructed on the complexities of curriculum construction to ensure that their expectations are realistic. Bell (2005:150-3 & 169-71) provides clear checklists and instruction on research instruments. These can be adapted to make them age-appropriate. Less traditional means of data collection i.e. photographs should be accepted if suggested by students. Kirby (2001:75) suggests SV research relies too much on “questionnaires and interview methods”. However, in this case it is likely that experimental data collection methods are unlikely to gather meaningful data. Less traditional research methods such as photography, visualisation, drawing and role-play are of limited value in pursuing the research questions specified.

The students, with guidance, will select the data collection methods most appropriate to the research questions. The research instruments will then be constructed in consultation with adult researchers to ensure validity and reliability. However, a degree of student autonomy will be assumed and researchers will attempt to offer guidance without being prescriptive. The sessions on data collection should incorporate aspects of securing informed consent, building rapport, taking written notes and practising researcher ethics (Yonezawa and Jones 2009:207). Time will be taken to cover these aspects of research to ensure the validity of the data collected.

14


Adults will facilitate discussions and not lead students; instead they will act as advisors enabling the students to make their own decisions. Researchers will endeavour to follow the checklist set down by Cheminais (2008:38-39) which gives guidance on engaging students face-to-face during research to minimise the researcher’s impact on student decisions.

When gathering data the student-researchers must be aware of (Macbeath et al 2001:81):

Ethical issues Whether information is given consciously or unconsciously Whether pupils know what will happen as a result of consultation (feedback and

action)

Data gathering will be dependent on the research design selected by students. Student researchers must be able to phrase questions in a suitable manner and follow-up with insight and logic. The use of student researchers often has a placatory effect on respondents and enables researchers to establish a better rapport with younger respondents as the researchers are able to use “child friendly language and appropriately phrased questions” (Barratt and Hacking 2009). Therefore, should interviews be a chosen instrument, prior to data collection, teachers and students will role-play interviews using a variety of follow up questions and other techniques to enable students elicit the best possible data.

Student researchers will work in pairs and visit classes over a month to allow for flexibility in student availability. A timetable for class visits will be organised and teachers informed prior to the researcher’s arrival of both the nature of the research and the methods to be employed. Teachers will be requested to allow students autonomy wherever possible. Student respondents may chose not to collaborate in the SV project and having made a conscious decision not to speak out owing to “an invasion of their personal space, a feeling of insecurity or a sense of helplessness” i.e. a disbelief that their opinion will help change any of the constructs they are being asked about” (Cook-Sather 2006:369). Students who chose not to speak out must be respected and student researchers must be trained to respect the rights of the individual to not take part.

4. Data Analysis

It is never possible to escape the interpretative frameworks we adopt as researchers (Grover 2004). The generation of data is an intercultural event in which researchers and students shape the outcomes (Baker 2004; Danby and Farell 2004). Therefore we need to “put the processes that give rise to potential delusion and miscommunication under the spotlight” (Mannion 2007:407).

If students are involved in data collection it would be remiss to not engage them in data analysis, as student’s perspectives help shape the interpretation of the data. Dockett et al (2009) suggest including children’s perspectives throughout the research process by integrating interpretation in the data gathering methods. This helps move students’ engagement beyond the level of consultation and participation (Lansdown 2005). A further

15


consideration is “recasting”, as the language of the researcher is often used to reshape the language of the data leading to exclusion or metamorphosis (Fielding 2004:298).Therefore, data interpretation should be carried out by the students with guidance from researchers. Ideally, the data should be handed to the course writers with minimal adult “contamination”. Censorship of unsuitable data may not be required as students rarely suggest radical changes to teaching practice instead they follow “a broadly progressive liberal agenda in asking for greater mutuality, respect and active learning” (Bragg 2007:351).

The data set produced will involve around 200 respondents. However, with ten students analysing it, processing time will be substantially reduced. It is important to standardise the students and give them the skills to undertake data analysis in a logical, methodical way. Therefore, researchers will deliver sessions on data analysis to cultivate students’ awareness of techniques for filtering data in a reliable, valid manner.

Barratt and Hacking (2009) introduced a qualitative framework for the analysis of data sets. This enables students to maintain a degree of autonomy whilst giving them clear and practical guidelines for analysis. Such a framework for this project might be:

Look at the data with a partner and establish any patterns Examine the data again and think about what the most important things being said are Put the data onto post-it notes and then attempt to group the data on the walls of the

classroom Collect the ideas from the walls onto one document organising the ideas into different

headings

This stage should be semi-autonomous. The objective is for the students to interpret and formulate ideas without guidance or “tainting” by adult researchers. The senior teacher will lead the session and maintain a distance from the proceedings, offering help when sought. Students then triangulate data by presenting it to peers or following-up using mini-interviews with respondents to clarify and confirm outcomes. This will ascertain the validity of the data presented to adults. Once ascertained, students will present their preliminary findings to the senior teacher to practice for their presentation to teachers/writers. The senior teacher will question and probe attempting to give students guidance on how to relay their answers and support their ideas using the data they have gathered.

5. Disseminating Research Findings

Data ownership lies with the student co-researchers and it is theirs to disseminate. Bragg (2007:19) notes “involving young people in dissemination has been shown to have a strong impact on adult audiences”. Given the context it would be suitable for students to present their results and then to ensure that the teachers work closely to their interpretation of the data when writing the lessons. A presentation will facilitate this exchange of data and clarify the results of the research for teachers/writers. Following this, each of the students will partner with one of the course writers. This will allow for further input and reflection throughout the writing and development stage.

16


This conforms to three principles for children’s successful participation in dissemination (Barratt and Hacking 2009:380):

I. Children’s authentic views and words are representedII. Forms of dissemination are concomitant with children’s own interests and skillsIII. Children play a key role in deciding how and when ideas emerging from the project

should be disseminated

Adult’s responses to student findings are vital in making a difference (Rudduck and McIntyre 2007). Children assume that the right response is one which validates their discoveries. However, this validation usually comes about when the suggestions offered validate teachers’ existing practices or offer sensible ideas (McIntyre et al 2005). Teachers must be aware of the dangers of “glamorizing students’ voices…imbued with status quo values” (O’Loughlin 1995:112; Cook-Sather 2006:369), especially in situations where teachers may use SV data to validate parts of the old course which are not fit for purpose. If SV results are to be respected by the teachers they must have the right to challenge the data. The “Pollyanna” effect in which SV research has focussed on positive data while ignoring the negative (Nieto 1994; Nixon et al 1996) has led to researchers challenging the results of some SV projects.

Teachers should challenge the students’ data in a non-threatening manner. This is important as the pressures of needing rapid results may lead us to listen most readily to voices that make immediate sense (Bragg 2001:73). Students must support their points against challenges from instructors who may feel threatened or perceive themselves as being the subject of the students critiques (Cheminais 2008). However, many adults have been won over by the serious substantiated comments of students’ research (Bragg 2007:349).Equally, many SV research projects have helped deconstruct the myth of the infallible teacher (Flutter and Rudduck 2004). In reality students are aware of who will make the final decision (Roche 1999 cited in Flutter and Rudduck 2004). Therefore, adults should show openness towards the students’ data and be genuine in their responses while avoid crushing fragile egos.

6. Course Development

Data sets will be woven into a curriculum planning document which outlines themes, skills and objectives for the course by the senior teacher in consultation with other teachers. Prior to the commencement of writing, students are consulted to approve the outline of the course and ensure that adult perspectives have not tainted the data.

Each teacher will be assigned a module of four thematically linked lessons incorporating a text-type, grammar points and skills identified by the students. The writing process takes around 4 months, during this period, monthly sessions will be held with the co-researchers at which teachers present their work and receive feedback from the students to refine their work and clarify the data set. This approach shows “the importance of acting on research

17


recommendations…making sure that student researchers were aware of and involved in whatever follow-up work was agreed” (Fielding 2004:304). Ensuring viewpoints are heard allows students to continue to have input past the data collection stage, so that their data actively informs the lesson and curriculum design. At all stages it is important to give students feedback on their progress with data collection and also the shape of the curriculum (Tinsdale and Davis 2004).

Reflective periods are essential to the project’s success as they ensure the course does not stray from the data obtained during the research phase. Equally, joint reflection is highlighted as being key to SV projects’ success as it fosters trust between students and adults which allow teachers to “confront, acknowledge and change those aspects of their values, beliefs and practices that may be inhibiting their further development” (Frost and Holden 2008:87). These meetings also allow students to see their ideas implemented, thus reducing any negativity associated with their suggestions be implemented in a limited manner. Teachers will be able to explain the rationale for limited exploitation of SV data and students will make recommendations to reach compromises. The students should be given further opportunities for assessment of the product prior to a trial stage as it is inevitable that the writer will seek to add their own interpretation to the data. During this phase the students will have the chance to ensure that the central message is not obscured by reinterpretation and will prevent reshaping occurring by controlling what is included and excluded from the text (Fielding 2004:298). This will allow researchers to “conceptualise and collaborate” with student co-interpreters and “has the potential to resist some forms of imposition and subordination” (Cook-Sather 2007:397).

7. Refinement

The new lessons will be trialled with students allowing further opportunity for the co-researchers to gain feedback on them. Co-researchers will receive training to develop feedback questionnaires which can be employed to gauge students’ reactions to the new lessons. Further, revisions to the material will be made based on the data collected and analysed by co-researchers and fed-back to writers. This stage may be repeated a number of times until the lessons become suitable for classroom use.

Evaluating Impact

At the end of the project 40 x 2 hour lessons will be produced. These will fit the MOE syllabus and match the needs of the S1 students. Topics will be specific to the students and will take into account the interests of the demographic group under instruction. These lessons will be trialled the year following development and refined according to feedback collected through further research using a questionnaire developed on the Survey Monkey website by the student researchers. This form of surveying is used at the end of all BCS courses and students are used to it as a feedback collection method.

There is a danger that having completed the programme it is neither fully evaluated nor continued in any meaningful way which not only reduces the impact but squanders the

18


talents of the individuals who have contributed. Therefore, after evaluating the impact of the SV project, preparations can be made to redevelop further courses along similar lines to ensure a culture of SV endures.

An attempt will be made to uncover the impact of the research project on the researchers through focus groups and feedback sessions.

A further ethical consideration is the impact of the research on not only the researchers but those who contributed to the data collection process. Kirby (2001:75) draws attention to the fact that there is too much focus on how positive SV research is for those who undertake the research and too little emphasis on the effects of SV research on those who were respondents. There is a concern that “participating respondents have a positive rather than negative experience, and they do not feel anxious, upset or apprehensive (Kirby 2001:75). Alderson (1995) offers a checklist of questions to consider and suggests making an impact on children statement to examine the effect on those children who participate and those affected by the results.

Future Implications

The role of SV in curriculum design clearly has a place in private language institutions. Even though some managers are utilising student voice to attain their own performance related goals. It is important to remember that student numbers are directly affected by quality in the private education sector. Therefore, SV has a role to play in making courses the best they can be possibly be. Not only to ensure that institute’s courses are pre-eminent amongst peers but also to play a strong strategic role in the improvement of the services offered by the institute to its customers. The additional benefits offered by SV as an emancipatory tool include; generating greater insight and understanding into the thoughts and needs of students, clarifying perspectives and enabling the institution to improve its pedagogy and lessons for both students and teachers alike. REDRAFT

Bibliography

Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to children: children ethics and social research London: Barnados.

Alderson, P. (2005) Ethics in A. Farell (ed) Ethical Research with Children p27-36. New York: Open University Press

Alcoff, L. (1991) The problem of speaking for others Cultural Critique 20, p5-32.

19


Aronowitz, S. and Giroux, H. (1993) Education Still Under Siege 2nd Edition. Westport CN: Bergin and Garve

Baker, C. (2004) Membership catergorization and interview accounts in D Silverman (ed) Qualitative research: Theory, Method and practice p162-76. London Sage

Barratt, R. and Hacking, E. (2009) Children researching their urban environment: developing a methodology. Education 3-13 37:4 p371-383

Bell, J, (2005) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science. Open University Press

Black-Hawkins, K. (2005) Stories of Research from Sharnbrook School. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan 14-17 September

Boomer, G. (1982) (ed) Negotiating the Curriculum. Sydney: Ashton Scholastics

Bragg, S. (2001) Taking a Joke: Learning from voices we don’t want to hear. Forum 43(2) p70-73

Bragg, S. (2007) ‘Student Voice’ and Governmentality: The Production of enterprising subjects? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 28: p343-358

Brooker, R. and MacDonald, D. (1999) Did we hear you?: issues of student voice in a curriculum innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31:1, p83-97

Cairns, K. (2009) A Future to Voice? Continuing debates in feminist research with youth. Gender and Education 21(3) p321-335

Cheminais, R. (2008) Engaging Student Voice to Ensure that Every Child Matters – A Practical Guide. Oxon:Routledge

Cherryholmes, C. (1987) A Social project for curriculum: post structural perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4) p295-316

Cook-Sather, A. (2006) Sound, presence and power: ‘Student Voice’ in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4) p359-390

Cook-Sather, A. (2007) What would happen if we treated students as those with opinions that matter? The benefits to principals and teachers of supporting youth engagement in school. NASSP Bulletin 91, p343-362

Cumming, J. (1994) Educating young adolescents: targets and strategies of the 1990s. Curriculum Perspectives 14(3) p52-55

Danby, S. and Farell, A. (2004) Accounting for Young children’s competence in educational research: new perspectives on research ethics. Australian Educational Researcher 31 (3) p35-49

20


David M. (2007) Changing the Educational climate: Children citizenship and learning contexts? Environmental Education Research 13(4) p425-36

Davis, L., Williams, C. and Yamashita, H. (2006) Inspiring Schools – impact and outcomes: taking up the challenge of pupil participation. London Carnegie

DfES Every Child Matters. London DfES http://education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFES-0012-2006 Accessed 26 May 2010

Dockett, S. and Perry, B. (2005) Researching with Children: insights from the Starting School Research Project. Early Childhood Development and Care 175(6) p507-21

Dockett, S. Einarsdottir. J, and Perry, B. (2009) Researching with Children: Ethical Tensions. Journal of Early Childhood Research 7 p283-298

Dyson, B. (1995) Students’ voices in two alternative elementary physical education programs. Journal of teaching in Physical Education 14(4) p394-407

Ellsworth, E. (1992) Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In C. Luke and J. Gore (eds) Feminisms and Critical pedagogy (New York: Routledge) p90-119

Erikson, F. and Schultz, J. (1992) Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P Jackson (ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum, p465-85 New York: Macmillan

Farrell A (ed) (2005) Ethical Research with Children. New York: Open University Press

Fielding, M. (1999) Radial Collegiality: affirming teaching as an inclusive professional practice. Australian Educational Researcher 26(2) p1-34

Fielding, M. (2001) Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(3), p123-141

Fielding, M. (2004) ‘New Wave’ student voice and the renewal of civic society. London Review of Education, 2(3) p197-217

Fielding, M. (2004) Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realties. British Educational Research Journal 30(2) p295-311

Fielding, M. (2006) Student Voice: revolution renewal or regression? Seminar presentation to Sussex School of Education Sussex University 6 March

Flewitt, R. (2005) Is every child’s voice heard? Researching the different ways 3-year-old children communicate and make meaning at home and in a pre-school playgroup. Early years 25(3) p207-22

Flewitt, R. (2005) Conducting research with young children: some ethical issues. Early Childhood Development and Care 175(6) p553-65

21

http://education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFES-0012-2006


Flutter, J. and Rudduck, J. (2000) Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: ‘carving a new order of experience’. Cambridge Journal of Education 30(1) p75-89

Flutter, J. and Rudduck, J. (2004) Consulting Pupils: what’s in it for schools? London Routledge Falmer

Ford. K., Sankey, J. and Crisp, J. (2007) Development of children’s assent documents using a child centered approach. Journal of Child Health Care 11(1) p19-28

Francis, M. and Lorenzo, R. (2002) Seven realms of children’s participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22 p157-69

Frost, R. and Holden, G. (2008) Student voice and future schools: building partnerships for student participation. Improving Schools 11 p83-95

Giroux, H. (1999) Rage and Hope: what is the role of curriculum in critical pedagogy. Online www.perfectfit.org/CT/grioux5.html (accessed Feb 2010)

Gopinathan, S. (2001) Globalisation the state and education policy in Singapore. In Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today (eds) Jason Tan S. Gopinathan, Ho Wah Kam p 3-17. Prentice Hall/Pearson: Singapore

Grover, S. (2004) ‘Why won’t they listen to us?’ On giving power and voice to children participating in social research. Childhood 11(1) p81-93

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum Product or Praxis. London: Falmer Press

Gunther, H. and Thomson, P. (2007) Student Voice: Learning about Student Voice. Support for Learning 22(4) p181-188

Hadfield, M. and Haw, K. (2001) ‘Voice’ Young People and Action Research. Educational Action Research 9(3) p485-499

Hallgarten, J. (2000) Parents exist OK! Issues and visions for parent-school relationships London: IPPR

Hart, R. (1997) Children’s Participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan

Heath, S., Charles, G., Crow, G. and Wiles, R. (2004) Informed Consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens. Paper presented at the International Association Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, August in Amsterdam. www. sociology . soton . ac . uk / Proj / Informed_Consent / ISA . rtf (accessed March 2010)

Heng, A. (2001) Rethinking the Meaning of School Beyond the Academic “A”. In Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today (eds) Jason Tan S. Gopinathan, Ho Wah Kam p108-118. Prentice Hall/Pearson: Singapore

22

http://www.sociology.soton.ac.uk/Proj/Informed_Consent/ISA.rtf


Hill, M. (2005) Ethical Considerations in researching children’s experiences. In S. Greene and D Hogan (eds) Researching Children’s Experiences: Approaches and Methods p61-86 London: Sage

Jeffrey, B. (2001) Valuing primary student’s perspectives. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lille.

Kemmis, S. (1986) Seven principles for programme evaluation in curriculum development and innovation. In E. House (ed) New Directions in Educational Evaluation. London: Falmer Press

Khong Yiu Lan, L. (2004) Effective parenting and the role of the family in educational mediation in Singapore. Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today, Jason Tan S. Gopinathan, Ho Wah Kam (eds) p158-174. Prentice Hall/Pearson: Singapore

Kirby, P. (2001) Participatory Research in Schools. Forum 43(2) p74-77

Kirby, P. and Bryson, S. (2002) Measuring the Magic? Evaluating Young People’s Participation in Public Decision Making. London: Carnegie Young People Initiative

Lansdown, G. (1995) Taking Part: children’s participation in decision making. London: Institute for Public Policy Research

Lansdown, G. (2005) ‘Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them’. Working Paper 36 Bernard van Leer Foundation. The Hague

Levin, B. (1994) Education reform and the treatment of students in schools. Journal of Educational Thought 28(1) p88-101

Levin, B. (2000) Putting Students at the Centre of Educational Reform. International Journal of Educational Change 1(2) p155-72

Lewis, M. (1993) Without a Word: Teaching beyond women’s silence. New York: Routledge

Lodge, C. (2005) From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student participation in school improvement. Journal of Education Change 6(2) p125-146

Mac an Ghaill, M. (1992) Student perspectives on curriculum innovation and change in an English secondary school: an empirical study. British Educational Research Journal 18(3) p221-234

MacBeath, J., Myers, K., and Demetriou, H. (2001) Supporting teachers in consulting pupils about aspects of teaching and learning and evaluating impact. Forum 43(2) p78-82

MacBeath, J., Demetriou, H., Rudduck, J., and Myers, K. (2003) Consulting Pupils: A toolkit for teachers. Cambridge, Pearson

McIntyre, D., Pedder, D. and Rudduck, J. (2005) Pupil Voice: comfortable and uncomfortable learning for teachers. Research Papers in Education 20(2) p149-68

23


Meighan, R. (1988) Flexi-schooling. Education for tomorrow, starting yesterday. Ticknall Education Now Publishing Cooperative

Mitra, D. (2004) ‘The Significance of Students: Can Increasing ‘Student Voice’ in Schools Lead to Gains in Youth Development’. Teachers College Record 106(4) p651-88

Mitra, D. (2005) Increasing Student Voice and Moving Toward Youth Leadership. Prevention Researcher 13(1) p7-10

Mitra, D. (2008) Student Voice in School Reform – Building Youth-Adult Partnerships that strengthen Schools and empower youth. New York: State University of New York Press

Mitra, D. and Gross, S. (2009) Increasing Student Voice in High School Reform: Building Partnerships, Improving Outcomes. Educational Management Administration Leadership 37 p522-543

Monahan, L. (1999) Moving Forward with Students. Dublin: The Irish Association of Pastoral Care in Education

Nieto, S. (1994) Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review 64(4) p392-426

Nixon, J., Martin, J., McKeown, P. and Ranson, S. (1996) Engaging Learning: Towards a Theory of the Learning School. Buckingham: Open University Press

O’Loughlin, M. (1995) Daring the imagination: Unlocking voices of dissent and possibility in teaching. Theory into Practice 43(2) p107-116

Orner, M. (1992) Interrupting the calls for student voice in ‘liberatory’ education: a feminist poststructuralist perspective. In C. Luke & J Gore (eds) Feminism and Critical pedagogy. London: Routledge

Pakir, S. (1994) English in Singapore: The codification of competing norms. In Language Society and Education in Singapore – Issues and Trends 2nd Edition (eds) Gopinathan S, Pakir A, Ho Wah Kam & Saravanan V p63-84 Pearson: Singapore

Playle, J. (1995) Quality in Nursing Education: an exploration of the concept of students as customers. Nurse Education Today 16 p215-220

Roberts, A. and Nash, J. (2009) Enabling students to participate in school improvement through a Students as Researchers programme. Improving Schools 12 p174-187

Robinson, C. and Taylor, C. (2007) Theorizing student voice: values and perspectives. Improving Schools 10(1) p5-17

Rudduck, J. (1999) Teacher practice and the student voice, in M Lang, J Olsen, H Hansen and W Bunder (Eds) Changing Schools/Changing Practices: perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism 41-54 Louvain Graant

24


Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2000) Pupil Participation and pupil perspective: carving a new order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1) p75-89

Rudduck, J. and McIntyre, D. (2007) Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils. Oxon: Routledge

Silva, E. (2001) ‘Squeaky Wheels and Flat Tires’: A case study of students as reform participants. Forum, 43(2) p95-99

Rubin, B. and Silva, E. (eds) (2003) Critical Voices in School Reform: students living through change. London: Routledge Falmer

Smyth, J. (2005) Policy Research and damaged teachers: towards an epistemologically respectful paradigm. Waikato Journal of Education 10 p263-281

Thomson, P. (2007) Toward the pedagogically engaged school: Listening to student voice as a positive response to disengagement and ‘dropping out’? In D Thiessen and A. Cook-Sather (eds) International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school p 635-658. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Publishers

Thornton, R. and Chapman, H. (2000) Student Voice in Curriculum Making. Journal of Nursing Education 39(3) p124-132

Tinsdale, E. and Davis, J. (2004) Making a difference? Bringing children and young people’s views into policy making. Children and Society 18 p131-42

Tsafos, V. (2009) Teacher-student negotiation in an action research project. Educational Action Research 17(2) p197-211

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) UN General Assembly Resolution 44/25

Vandenbroeck, M. and Bie, M. (2006) Children’s agency and educational norms. Childhood 13 p127-43

Waller, T. (2006) Don’t come too close to my octopus tree’: recording and evaluating young children’s perspectives on outdoor learning. Children, Youth and Environments 16(2) p75-104

Watson, N. and Fullan, M. (1992) Beyond school-district-university partnerships in M. Fullan and A Hargreaves (Eds) Teacher Development and Educational Change p213-242. Lewes: Falmer Press

Whitty, G. and Wisby, E. (2007) Whose Voice? An exploration of the current policy interest in pupil involvement in school decision making International Studies. Sociology of Education 17(3) p303-319

Wyness, M. (1999) Childhood, agency and reform. Childhood 6(3) p353-68

25


Yonezawa, S. and Jones, M. (2009) Student Voices: Generating Reform from the Inside Out. Theory into Practice 48:3 p205-212

Young. M, (1999) Knowledge, learning and the curriculum of the future. British Educational Research Journal 25 p463-477

26

The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft