AGIS Conference
Saturday 30th Jan 2016
Student Voice (SV)
‘Hearing Voices’
Rohan Skene
Bavarian International School
WELCOME
In this session
• Student voice- some conceptions- benefits
• Does Student voice have an image problem?
• Investigation findings- 3 German International
schools
• Bavarian International School, our experience
• The future- what might work
• AIM: some take home ideas to ignite or
sustain SV initiatives at your school
Me
• BIS- secondary 6 years- IGCSE Coordinator, IBDP
& Pastoral Coordinator, Deputy Principal- Munich
• 12 years UK - London
• 3 years-Hunter Valley- Australia
• Cairns, Brisbane, Australia
• Currently completing research on student voice
and the curriculum as part of EdD.
• I first experienced SV in 2006 in UK- “road to
Damascus” moment
You?
• What is it about SV that interests you?
Personal Convictions
• Knowledge is both constructed and can
exist in some pure state- Social Realism
stance (Young, 2008)- Truth is the best truth
until another comes along- plurality of
truths (Gardner, 2011)
• Education as transformative- SESI School
Effectiveness and School Improvement
• Learning is experiential (Dewey, 1938)constructivist rather than content
curriculum
Content Versus Construction
Student Voice- some conceptions
Dialogue -speaking and active listening but goes further into the
realisation of and benefits from shared meaning and mutual
awareness between student and teacher, with a focus on learning
Consultation Dynamic interaction between students and teachers on a
wide range of school issues including classroom teaching and learning
and some resultant action
Participation- mere compliance “bottoms on seats” or students
talking in the hope of being listened to
Student Voice
Teachers and Students having conversations with each
other about teaching in learning where:
Both sides are talking and listening
The dialogue is sustained
There is a formal and an informal element
Some action comes from the conversationsimproved Teaching & Learning
(Hargreaves, 2004; Cook-Sather, 2006; Flutter, 2007;
Lodge,2005, 2008; Quaglia and Corso, 2014)
Driven by
• UN Rights Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989)
• Democratic principles- citizenship
• Neo-liberal consumerist approach to
education- customers/commodities
• Change in sociology of childhood- view of
child as ‘becomings’
My View
• Student voice implies that sustained
conversations about learning take place
between the two parties that have a shared
but differing interior experiential authenticity
in education, namely the students and the
teachers. That these activities if sustained
should lead to some transformation in the
pedagogy of the classroom so that new
experiences in learning emerge for both
student and teacher.
Benefits of SV
• Students
• Improved classroom experience & engagement- learningacademic performance (no empirical evidence)
• Benefits of being involved in discussions & research- skills
• Sense of self/belonging- being listened to- mutual trust-culture
• Teachers
• Consider another perspective- modify approaches- revolutionary
• Affirming- builds relationships and trust- teacher as learner
• School
• Developing an open culture that empowers both child and adult
Ultimately
BLT
• Belonging
• Learning
• Trust
Does SV have an image problem?
• “I am fed up with hearing about student's opinions.
They have between 11 and 18 years experience of
life, and even less experience of education. Any
school that does not consider that the teachers are
the most important assets to the school has totally
lost the plot. The students are here to learn; the
teachers are not here to learn from the students. In
this school a student only has to moan and the
management goes into a flap. A teacher moans
and it is the teacher’s fault that things are going
wrong. Start supporting the teachers”
(Teacher with over 20 years experience, school B,
May 2014)
Discussion Question
• What has been your experience with student
voice activities?
• What barriers do you foresee?
Misconceptions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SV is a one-sided conversation/is a discrete event
Continuous two sided dialogue that is sustained
SV is when students tell teachers how to do their job
Students are giving their perceptions of what works and doesn’t work for
them- interior authenticity- dynamic interaction
Students and teachers are on an equal footing
There will always be a power differential- teachers have a experiential
differential- teacher voice- Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Schulman
1986, 2009)
Is where students tell teachers what content they want to learn
Conversations that centre on pedagogy are more successful- powerful
knowledge (Young, 2008)
Is only concerned with lockers, uniform, food and behaviour
These are important but learning should be at the heart of the
conversations
Barriers
• Power differential-fear of the undermining of teacher
authority
“The argument runs that if too great an emphasis is placed on the pupil voice, there
may be some risk that the teacher voice is silenced” (Flutter, 2007)
• Death by Delay
“Unless someone like you cares an awful lot nothing is going to get better it’s
not” (The Lorax, Dr Suess)
• Getting through the course/content/unit- preparing
for examinations
• Tokenistic approaches – marginalisation,
manipulation, homogenisation
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(Lee Schulman, 1986, 2009)
• Area of Dynamic
interaction- authentic
conversations
• Conversations about the
classroom experiencestudents bring experience
• Teachers can learn from
the student’s perspective
• Backed by school
structure/leadership
My Research Question- 2014-15
• What are student and teacher perceptions
about student voice engagement in the
context of three European International
Schools with differing curriculum designs?
• What connections, if any exist between
student voice engagement and curriculum
design in these schools?
Study: 3 German International Schools
• The schools- A, B and C - Bavaria
• IB World schools- similar student structure
• Focus on Grades 9 and 10
• Focus groups and teacher interviews over 18 months
• School A IGCSE, School B MYP, School C a mix of both
• Semi-structured questions-student & teacher views on
1. What makes a good teacher/school?
2. Student council role- impact on learning
3. Notions and impact of the curriculum
4. Student Voice
Findings
• Good teacher: passion-distinction between
platonic relationship and learning relationship
(are you my teacher or the teacher?)- building
blocks of a “good school”- recognition of layered
power imbalances.
• School Council: little impact on learning- more
comfort issues- ‘active spirit’(school A) –
student/student power imbalances
• “it seems like it is more about school spirit and events
like St Valentine’s Day and not about the actual
learning”(student school B)
Findings
• Curriculum: appeal of constructivist/enquiry
based curriculum, external factors impact
decision about which curriculum to deliver
IGCSE Vs MYP, prescribed content delivery
negatively impacts ability to engage in SV
• Student Voice: value attached to SV or idea of
SV, accountability a barrier, students didn’t
want to offend teachers- power relationships,
teacher ‘buy-in’ essential
Conclusion
• Curriculum has some impact on the success of SV
initiatives but it is not the deciding factorcontext, culture, accountability
• Constructivist style curriculum lends itself more
to collaboration e.g. MYP
• Power relationships- inevitable- overt /covert,
negotiate the overt first but for real progress
issues involving the covert need to evolve
• SV initiatives that center on pedagogy will be
more successful and offer a gateway (PCK)
• No student voice without teacher voice
Discussion Question
• Are there any issues raised in the conclusions
that you would like to comment on?
BIS- our journey
• Tried, True and Tested prior to 2011
• Informal class student feedback- conversations about upcoming topics, prior knowledge
• Student council- decoration, rules, lockers, dress code
• Student contributions newsletter or magazine
• Towards 2011- 2013
• Formal: Use of student focus groups to gather
information on student experiences at school- transition,
assessment etc
• The term student voice become part of culture
• Student council- research into own effectiveness
• Teacher CIG’s (Collaborative Inquiry Groups)- SV one of
the themes
Key Moments 2011-2013 and what we
learnt
School Culture- Student Voice as a conceptpowerful- job descriptions, go-to term, need for SV
coordinator
Student Council- student-student power imbalancedid not seem effective, need for teachers
coordination- suggest separate SV group
Student as Researchers proposed- interested
students from G11 invited T&L focus
CIGs- force feeding did not work
Student-Led- newspaper a good example of student
engagement
Key Moments 2013-2015 and what we learnt
Student as Researchers (SaR)- very effective but two
way dialogue-not there yet
needed to be established and “kept alive” in minds
of students-assemblies, teacher focus groups led by
students
Student Council- “shoving spirit down our throats”
did not work- needed some grounding- active spirit
Prevent Death by Delay- ask 3 questions
1. What promotes learning?
2. What does not promote learning?
3. What do you want me to do more of in class?
Going forward-tips
• SV needs to be introduced gradually and infused into
the school culture- need leadership on board
• Sustained informal SV encouraged- how was that unit?
• SV works better when student-led with less and less
teacher authority as initiative progresses- successStudents as Researchers-(nor student council)
powerful, need for SV coordinator
• Teacher Voice! There can be no SV without TV- need to
empower teachers by being up-front about
misconceptions (tackle image problem)
• Focus on pedagogy not content
• Continue to light fires- you will not win everyone
overnight but momentum is infectious
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Simon and Schuster
Schulman, L. (1986) Those Who Understand Knowledge Growth in Teaching, Educational Researcher
February 4-14
Fielding, M. (2001). Students as Radical Agents of Change, Journal of Educational Change (UK)
Hargreaves, D. (2004). Personalised Learning-2: Student voice and assessment for learning, London:
Specialist Schools Trust
Lodge, C. (2005). ‘From Hearing Voices To Engaging In Dialogue: Problematising Student Participation
In School Improvement, Journal of Educational Change (UK)
Lodge, C. (2008). ‘Student Voice and Learning-Focused School Improvement’ London, IOE, INSI
Research Matters, 32, 1-20.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and
Reform, Curriculum Inquiry 36 (4), 359-390
Flutter, J. (2007): Teacher development and pupil voice, Curriculum Journal, 18:3, 343-354
Rudduck, J., McIntyre, D. (2007): Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils, Abingdon: Routledge
(UK)
Young, M. (2008). Bringing Knowledge Back In: From social constructivism to social realism in the
sociology of education. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
Gardner, H. (2011). Truth Beauty and Goodness Reframed: Educating for the Virtues in the Age of
Truthiness and Twitter, Philadelphia: Basic Books
Gardner, H. (2011). Truth Beauty and Goodness Reframed: Educating for the Virtues in the Age of
Truthiness and Twitter, Philadelphia: Basic Books
Quaglia and Corso (2014) Student Voice (USA)
Questions
• Feedback Form
• My contact: r.skene@bis-school.com
• Many thanks.