Introduction – Seeking and listening to student perspectives can be worthwhile since it provides unique insights into the complexities of teaching and learning. Despite the fact that students are increasingly recognised as primary stakeholders in education, the majority of studies continues to position students as mere information providers and therefore fails to provide them with more active roles (Pinter, Mathew & Smith, 2016). One of the areas where students have had few opportunities to express their perspectives, let alone be involved in decision-making, is teaching and learning. Especially the curriculum is rarely seen as a suitable arena for student voice initiatives (Brooker & MacDonald, 1999; Rudduck & Flutter, 2000). This systematic literature review provides an overview of studies which have gone beyond positioning students as subjects or information providers by recognising them as knowledgeable partners. Thus far, such studies either targeted traditional student council topics and/or focused on university students. This review, therefore, examines the few existing empirical studies which focus on how secondary and vocational education students are involved in co-creation and decision-making in the context of teaching and learning. We focus on how student voice is embodied as well as relevant factors for implementation and the impact of student voice projects on students’ personal development and school connectedness.

Methods – Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search in ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For each included study, references and citations were checked for additional relevant studies. Studies were included which focus on actively involving students in co-creation and decision-making and which go beyond influencing their individual learning processes. We discuss qualitative empirical studies which focus on 12-20 year-old students participating in student voice initiatives in the context of teaching and learning. In order to analyse the extracted data, content analysis in combination with the Action Research cycle and the Theoretical Domains Framework were used.

Results – The 15 included studies indicate that students were involved in various phases and were assigned multiple roles and responsibilities. Although students were involved in the planning phase in almost every study, participation was predominantly limited to advising. During the acting/observing phase, students had more profound roles and responsibilities. Many studies organised activities with the aim of engaging students as co-researchers. Students were least involved in reflecting and if they were involved at all, their role was limited to sharing their perspectives and experiences at the end of the project. Knowledge and skills were important factors for implementation. We also found that provoking radical shifts in social/professional roles and identities is not only a time consuming endeavour, but may result in all kinds of emotions. Many teachers had low levels of optimism or even concerns about inviting students to participate in educational development. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that initially student participation activities led to anxiety and chaos among teachers. Students were often hesitant at the start and lacked beliefs about their capabilities. However, as they got used to being more involved, their confidence grew. Teachers were vital in increasing students’ perceived competences by offering guidance, support, encouragement and insights. Apart from learning and practicing a wide range of skills, students’ sense of confidence, ownership and empowerment grew, which resulted in increased beliefs about their capabilities. Lastly, relationships between students and teachers improved.

Conclusions – We should look for ways to expand and improve the intensity, nature and quality of student voice activities. Students should be presented with various opportunities for taking diverse roles in each research phase. Future research should include working collaboratively with students in vulnerable positions as well as in more diverse school settings.

Study design – Relevant studies were identified through a systematic search in ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. Three groups of keywords were used: doing research with students; concerning teaching and learning; and in schools. References and citations were checked for additional studies. The inclusion criteria were: (1) empirical studies with qualitative design; (2) focus on secondary or vocational education students between 12 and 20 years old; (3) set in high income countries; (4) focus on student voice initiatives in the context of teaching and learning and which go beyond influencing students’ individual learning processes; and (5) peer-reviewed articles published in English. Search process and outcome – Initially, a total of 4,420 articles were found. Titles and abstracts were screened by the first author. When in doubt, the decision about including or excluding the study in question would be postponed until a later phase. During the eligibility phase, 57 studies were assessed by two authors. The main reasons for exclusion were: not focused on teaching and learning, students’ influence was limited to individual learning process and unsuitable research approach. Data extraction – These data were extracted: aim and context, participant characteristics, data collection and analysis methods, description of student participation in research phases, key findings and implications. Data analysis – Content analysis in combination with the Action Research cycle and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were used. The Action Research cycle starts with participants determining the focus of inquiry, deciding on the desired improvement and crafting a plan for observing and recording the activities (i.e. planning). Next, these activities are implemented and subsequently observed and monitored (i.e. acting/observing). This phase is then followed by critically reflecting on the outcomes of the action and, when necessary, revising the activities based on what has been learned (i.e. reflecting) (Creswell, 2015; Koshy, 2009; Pardede, 2019). Although the TDF consists of 14 domains, we focus on those domains which emerged most prominently during the analysis: knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, optimism, emotions, social/professional role and identity, and social influences (Cane, O’Connor, & Michie, 2012; Michie et al., 2005). These domains provide a theoretical lens for determining cognitive, affective, social and environmental factors influencing behaviour (Atkins et al., 2017). In our case, the TDF could contribute to determining which factors influence the implementation of student voice initiatives in teaching and learning as well as assessing the impact on students’ development and their school connectedness.

No studies were identified which worked collaboratively with vocational education students and even though we gained a deeper understanding of how secondary students participated in student voice initiatives, their involvement in co-creation and decision-making in the context of teaching and learning was quite limited. Also, those subjects that were opened up to co-creation and decision-making were mainly “low-stakes” curriculum areas, such as physical, sexuality and arts education. Therefore, these initiatives cannot be expected to be transformative. Most teachers did not possess the necessary competences to work collaboratively with their students, which prevented them from sufficiently guiding their students. Nonetheless, few studies provided training to either teachers or students. Students were often hesitant at the start and lacked beliefs about their capabilities. However, in those instances when they succeeded in being more involved, their confidence grew. Teachers were vital in this process of increasing their students’ perceived competences by offering guidance, support, encouragement and insights. This underlines all the more the significance of appropriately preparing, training and supporting teachers in their role of promoting student voice. Even though student voice initiatives were flawed, the results of the few studies assessing the impact on students’ personal development and school connectedness seem to be hopeful. When implemented adequately, student voice initiatives are likely to positively impact the personal development and school connectedness of students. Therefore, these findings should encourage us to continue promoting and improving student voice initiatives in the context of teaching and learning. Future research should include working collaboratively with students in vulnerable positions as well as in more diverse school settings, for example in vocational or technical education. Lastly, research should concentrate on assessing the long-term impact of participating in student voice activities regarding teaching and learning on students’ development, but also their health, well-being and social position.

Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O’Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., . . . Grimshaw, J. M. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation science, 12(1), 1-18. Brooker, R., & Macdonald, D. (1999). Did we hear you?: Issues of student voice in a curriculum innovation. Journal of curriculum studies, 31(1), 83-97. Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation science, 7(1), 1-17. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (Vol. (5th ed.)): Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Koshy, V. (2009). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide: Sage. Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., & Walker, A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. BMJ Quality & Safety, 14(1), 26-33. Pardede, P. (2019). Seeing Action Research Process in a Practice. Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian primary English classrooms. ELT Research papers, 16(03). Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and pupil perspective:'carving a new order of experience'. Cambridge journal of education, 30(1), 75-89.