Listening to Marginalised Voices: Students’ helping Teachers to Construct Purposeful Inclusive Cultures in Schools

Author(s):

Hugh Busher(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 07 D, Pupil Interests and Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

17:15-18:45

Room:

B228 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Gerry MacRuairc

Contribution

Listening to the multiplicity students’ voices helps teachers to tune their teaching and organisational practices to the social and cognitive needs of students and helps students to have a sense of ownership of their learning and of the school of which they are part. The paper draws on three studies of student voices carried out in England and Lebanon in Primary and Secondary schools between 2006 and 2011 that investigated students’ views of teaching, learning and their school as an organisation.

Students are experienced participant observers of teachers, teaching and schools (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002) who can articulate clearly their views on teachers and teaching (Nabhani, Busher and Bahous, 2012) that bear a strong similarity for example, to the work of Kyriacou (2007) on successful classroom practice. However, the concept of student voice is problematic. Some researchers hold that it can only be articulated when teachers authorise it and usually in ways that curtail any critical discussion of prevailing conditions (Ruddock, 2006). Others assume that student voice is monolingual (Robinson and Taylor, 2007), and that students should only be listened to when they speak in the ways expected of subordinates by ruling elites (Spivak in Morton, 2002), in the case of schools, the teachers. This denies the multi-faceted nature of student perspectives (Rubin and Silva, 2003) that arise from the intersectionality of gender, social status, ethnicity and faith (Reay, 2006) that shape how students construct their perspectives: there is not one student voice but many.

Listening to student voices helps teachers to reflect more critically on their practices (McIntyre, et al., 2005) to improve the quality of teaching and learning and meet students’ educational needs more successfully (Fielding, 2004). Further, involving students directly in school decision-making about issues of immediate relevance to their own lives, such as teaching, learning and school organisation, helps to develop respectful cultures in schools (Sebba and Robinson, 2011) and raises students general levels of motivation and productivity (Potter, 2002).

Accessing students’ perspectives used to be encouraged by central government in England to promote personalised learning. It acknowledged students have a right to be heard in the evaluation of schools (Troman et al., 2007) and to influence the shaping of their own learning (Fielding, 2004). It also gives them a sense of ownership of the learning and institutional process of which they are part (Potter, 2002, Sebba and Robinson, 2011), helping to develop a more inclusive school environment and democratising schooling (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004). It recognises that students are citizens, not merely citizens in preparation, whose rights should be respected under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (Sebba and Robinson, 2011).

Within the European Union, the development of citizenship by member states is recognised as crucial to the construction of society (Osler and Starkey, 1999). However, there are some distinct national differences in understandings of citizenship, with an emphasis in England on citizens’ duties and responsibilities but on citizen rights (e.g. the right to travel, or to work) in France and Spain (Edye, 2003). However, in England it is difficult to promote a genuinely democratic dialogue in schools (Arnot and Reay 2007) because state schools try to optimise their own performance within the disciplinary framework of performative education policy (Troman, et al., 2007). Consequently, student ‘consultation’ may be tokenistic (Byrom et al, 2007) with school council agendas constrained by the views of senior staff (Fielding, 2004) to discussing only matters considered safe for subordinates.

Method

The three studies varied in size, but all used a constructivist perspective (Lave and Wenger, 1991) to investigate students’ views of teaching, learning and their school in its socio-political contexts. None had fewer than 30 participants and all used semi-structured interviews with students and teachers, as well as non-participant observation by researchers as the main data collection instruments. Study three also used questionnaires with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data online. The qualitative data was audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a form of thematic analysis that reflected students’ views rather than researchers’ prior conceptions. Study One was based in four charity foundation Primary schools in Beirut, Lebanon (Nabhani, Busher and Bahous, 2012) serving economically disadvantaged city communities. Study Two was of Year 9 (Y9, 13-14 year old) students of English in a state Secondary school in England (Cremin, Mason and Busher, 2011, Busher and Cremin 2012) serving a mixed multi-cultural catchment area of private and social housing. Study three was of Y9 Science students (Tas and Busher, 2011, Busher and Tas 2012) in two state Secondary Schools in England, one serving a largely mono-cultural rural area and one an urban multi-cultural but largely economically disadvantaged area.

Expected Outcomes

Students liked those teachers who acknowledged their agency and constructed respectful relationships with them. Students appreciated teachers with particular qualities of trust, care and concern, and who maintained order so that students could work purposefully. Some recognised that teachers had to sustain a school’s system and welcomed their gentle surveillance during recreation times. Such views offer important clues to teachers about what relationships, organisational cultures and practices are likely to help students to engage strongly with schooling. Similarly, students’ views on successful lessons offer teachers important perspectives to help them shape their teaching (McIntyre et al, 2005). Students preferred collaborative and trustful cultures where people could ‘have fun’ while working purposefully; pedagogical strategies that facilitated practical work, learning related to students everyday lives where possible, and work that challenged students’ capabilities but met their own idiosyncratic preferences for learning. Students also welcomed clear explanations of the work, support in understanding when they needed it, especially when struggling to understand an aspect of their work, and a clear structure to their work. Students’ negative perspectives of schooling and lessons also offer teachers severe warnings on what needs to be eradicated if schools are to improve. The aspects of schooling which students in these studies disliked bear many resemblances to those characteristics related to schools described as ‘stuck’ (Stoll, 2007). What students disliked reflected their disengagement from aspects of schooling: certain subjects, other students’ anti-social behaviour, such as bullying or shouting, some teachers’ behaviours which were perceived as unfair or disrespectful of students that ignored students’ agency, and teachers who were perceived as incompetent. It suggests that the projection of power to enact, emblematise and sustain particular values is an important element in the construction of school cultures (Busher et al., 2007).

References

Arnot, M. and Reay, D. (2007) A sociology of pedagogic voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28 (3) 311–25. Byrom, T. Thomson, P. and Gates, P. (2007) ‘My school has been quite pushy about the Oxbridge thing’: voice and choice of higher education Improving Schools 10 (1) 29–40 Edye, D. (2003) Attitudes towards European Union Citizenship, in C. Roland-Levy & A. Ross (Eds) Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Fielding, M. (2004) Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities, British Educational Research Journal, 30 (2) 295 - 310 Flutter, J. and Rudduck, J. (2004) How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice, London: Continuum Books Kyriacou, C. (2007) Essential Teaching Skills, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (1999) Rights, Identities and Inclusion: European action programmes as political education, Oxford Review of Education, 25(1/2), 199-215 McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., and Rudduck, J. (2005) Pupil voice: comfortable and uncomfortable learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20, 149-168. Morton, S. (2003) Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak London: Routledge Nabhani, M., Busher, H. and Bahous, R. (2012) Cultures of engagement in challenging circumstances: Four Lebanese Primary Schools in urban Beirut, School Leadership and Management, 32 (1) 37-55 Potter, J. (2002) Active Citizenship in schools, London: Kogan Page. Reay, D. (2006) ‘I’m not seen as one of the clever children’: Consulting primary pupils about the social conditions of learning. Educational Review 58 (2) 131–43. Riley, K and Rustique-Forrester, E (2002) Working with Disaffected Students: Why students lose interest in school and what we can do about it, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Robinson, C. and Taylor, C. (2007) Theorizing student voice: values and perspectives Improving Schools; 10 (5) 5–17 Rubin, B.C., and E.M. Silva. (2003) Critical voices in school reform: Students living throughchange. London: Routledge Falmer Ruddock, J. (2006) The past, the papers and the project. Educational Review 58 (2) 131–43 Sebba, J. and Robinson, C. (2011) Evaluation of UNICEF UK’S Rights Respecting Schools Award paper presented to British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, London UK, 7-9 Sept 2011 Troman, G., Jeffrey, B. and Raggl, A. (2007) Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (5) 549-72.

Author Information

Hugh Busher (presenting / submitting)

University of Leicester, United Kingdom

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.