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.
ii) Continuums of SV Engagement
1

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 perspectives
2) Participation – where children are given the opportunity to become actively involved
3) Self-initiation – where students are empowered to take action
Alternatively, Mitra (2005) suggests the following hierarchy:
1) Being heard
2) Collaborating with adults
3) 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 source
ii. Students as active respondents
iii. Students as co-researchers
iv. 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
views are not necessarily sought; they are information banks which the researcher utilises.
Students are tools gaining no tangible skills and having limited involvement.
2

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.
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
3

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 students
2) 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
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
4

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).
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)
5

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.
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
6

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
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).
7

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
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
8

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
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
9

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) Age
3) 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.
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
10

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).
There are several ethical issues to consider when working with young people.
a. Gaining Consent
b. Ensuring viewpoints are heard
c. Right to Withdraw
d. Representative Demographic
e. Suitable support and training
f. The right to silence
11

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.
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)
12

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 Gathering
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
13

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.
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
14

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
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.
15

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.
This conforms to three principles for children’s successful participation in dissemination
(Barratt and Hacking 2009:380):
16

I. Children’s authentic views and words are represented
II. Forms of dissemination are concomitant with children’s own interests and skills
III. 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.
17

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
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
18

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
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
19

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.
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
20

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
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
21

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
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)
22

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
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
23

McIntyre, D., Pedder, D. and Rudduck, J. (2005) Pupil Voice: comfortable and uncomfortable
learning for teachers. Research Papers in Education 20(2) p149-68
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
Yonezawa, S. and Jones, M. (2009) Student Voices: Generating Reform from the Inside Out.
Theory into Practice 48:3 p205-212
25

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft

Similar to The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft (20)

More from Duncan Rose

More from Duncan Rose (6)

The Role of Student Voice in Curriculum Design - Final Draft