Student voice is argued as a way to enhance student learning (P. Bishop & Downes, 2008; Ferguson, Hanreddy, & Draxton, 2011; K. Johnston & Hayes, 2007; Lincoln, 1995; Smith, 2002; Smyth, 2007). Whilst no causal data has been generated to show that student voice causes or results in improved learning
(Flutter, 2006), the qualitative data generated by teachers’ voices (Downes, Nagle, & Bishop, 2010) as well as students’ voices (B. Morgan, 2009; Rudduck, 2007; Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001) does show a strong link in the minds of classroom actors.
A plethora of research and theorising exists to guide teachers’ understandings of how students learn without consulting students themselves. However, Toshalis and Nakkula (2012) argue that when students are consulted by their teachers, they
come to believe they are respected and valued and they develop enhanced feelings of ownership and belonging to their learning context (Mitra, 2009b).
The student voice as enhancing learning discourse incorporate four themes: 1) student voice develops increased metacognitive capacity (Cook-Sather, 2010; Wall & Higgins, 2006) and is linked with activity linked with contemporary theories of learning, 2) active student participation in decisions related to their learning leads to greater student engagement in learning at school (Finn, 1989), 3) consulting with students about their learning preferences is a way to personalise student learning (Czerniawski, Garlick, Hudson, & Peters, 2010); and 4) student perspectives on learning and teaching facilitate greater teacher understanding of their students as learners (Ferguson et al., 2011).
From the metacognitive perspective Cook-Sather (2010) argues that the opportunity for students to reflect on their learning and themselves as learners involves students in a process of ‘translation’ where they come to understand themselves better as learners. Through this process of translation they become a new version of their self with the insights and learning they gained through reflection. Collins (2004) argues that as a result of this kind of involvement “students begin to gain more control and ownership of their learning and become self-reflexive” (p. 354) and that through this kind of student involvement “the understanding of the whole learning community is enhanced” (p. 354). Student voice is theorised as constructivist (Burke, 2007; Cook-Sather, 2001, 2010; Ferguson et al., 2011; Lincoln, 1995). Constructivism conceptualises learning as a process of learners actively making sense of their experience either alone or in cooperative relationships with teachers and other learners (Biesta, 2005). The voice aspect of constructivism is the recognition of ‘multiple realities’ grounded in the personal experiences of individuals (Lincoln, 1995). These experiences can be incorporated into learning at school when teachers actively involve students in decision-making and sense-making of their experiences.
From the student engagement perspective of the student voice as enhanced learning discourse, active student participation in classroom decision-making, associated with student voice, is linked positively to student engagement with learning and identification with school important in preventing early school leaving (Finn, 1989; Finn & Kasza, 2009). Finn (1989) devised a participation-
identification engagement typology that identifies four levels of participation in school activities that are related to student engagement in learning and
identification with school: (1) students responding positively to school requirements, (2) students showing class-related initiative, (3) students participating in extracurricular activities within the school, and (4) students participating in decision-making about learning. In my study the fourth level is most relevant and is identified as the highest level in the typology.
However, although student engagement at school is positively associated with academic achievement, the relationship may be indirect (Finn & Rock, 1997). Finn and Rock (1997), note in their summary of research on this area, that
engagement results as an effect of participation. Students develop new skills and positive attitudes through participation, and in turn, receive reinforcement of these. They further note that one study in this area (Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994) with African American youth found significant positive correlations between emotional and behavioural engagement and educational outcomes for students.
One student engagement research example close to the design of this study was Kroeger et al’s (2004) US photovoice and action research study with students labelled at risk. University researchers and classroom teachers used photovoice methodology with six middle school students to explore the question ‘how can we be of assistance to these students?’ The question was prompted by a desire to re- engage the students with school by deepening their feelings of belonging and relationships with teachers. The starting point for the teachers was to learn from the students what might engage them and what was important to them in their lives. The photovoice process engaged the students and teachers directly in dialogue around the students’ photos and the themes that emerged. The teachers reflected on their pedagogy in light of the insights they gained from their students. Kroeger noted that as an outcome of the study “the participation levels of these students increased in the classroom over the course of the study and their academic performance showed gradual improvement” (p. 55).
Student voice research is positioned at the heart of the personalised learning movement in the UK (Czerniawski et al., 2010; Thomson & Gunter, 2007) and in New Zealand where it is a principle within a future-oriented learning and teaching
approach (Bolstad et al., 2012). Within personalised learning approaches students are positioned “at the centre of the education system” (Czerniawski et al., 2010, p. 8). Students articulating their learning needs and preferences are viewed as valuable data for crafting learning experiences that meet their personal needs and inform their teachers’ understanding of them as learners. Leadbeater (2004) conceptualises students as ‘users’ and ‘consumers’ of the education system where “service innovation is a joint production combining producers and consumers” (Czerniawski et al., 2010, p. 9). Leadbeater views personalised learning
approaches as transforming education systems still linked strongly to nineteenth century mass production principles to twenty-first century notion of
personalisation. Within personalised learning students move along ‘learning pathways’ across contexts of school, workplaces and other sites “at a pace that suits their abilities and circumstances” (Leadbeater, 2004, p. 7). Czerniawski along with others (Fielding, 2004a) cautions however that whilst personalised learning discourses aim to empower students as autonomous learners, the notion is also yoked to neo-liberal economic policy and runs the risk of becoming a ‘new orthodoxy’ (Fielding, 2004a).
The final aspect of student voice as enhancing learning discourse promotes student voice in the form of consultation and dialogue with teachers as a way to improve teacher learning and pedagogy, and as a flow-on effect student learning. Kane and Maw (2005) argue that teaching is only effective when it aligns with how students learn. Johnston and Nicholls (1995) noted it is particularly engaging when it resonates with students’ interests. Kane and Maw (2005) explored New Zealand secondary students’ perceptions of their learning and the conditions that supported their learning. They found that teachers gained more value from ongoing dialogic feedback with their students than from formal professional development opportunities. This finding resonated with prior teacher
development and formative assessment research also (Bell & Cowie, 2001; Bell & Gilbert, 1996). Through stimulated recall interviews the students identified aspects of the teaching practice they experienced that supported their learning. Through engaging with their students’ feedback participating teachers
Summarising the benefits teachers gain from engagement with their students on teaching and learning Rudduck (2007) noted that for teachers, student voice can lead to:
Increased awareness of young people’s capabilities; The capacity to see the familiar from a different angle;
A readiness to change thinking and practice in the light of these perceptions;
A renewed sense of excitement in teaching; A practical agenda for improvement; and
Confidence in the possibility of developing a more partnership-oriented relationship with their students.
(pp. 599-600)
These outcomes are echoed in Downes, Nagle and Bishop’s (2010) middle schooling research focused on integrating student consultation into teacher professional development. Within the context of an annual summer institute the Vermont Middle Grades Collaborative includes a consultation strand where middle years students act as consultants to teachers on aspects of student engagement, adolescent development and curriculum design. Teachers who participated in the consultation strand noted that as a result of insights they gained from student consultants they changed aspects of their classroom practice, gained a greater appreciation of what was important to students and gained confidence to employ consultative practices in their classrooms with their own students.