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.