Introduction – Although the concept of ‘student voice’ has gained in popularity in recent years, the majority of studies continue to position students as passive recipients of education developed by others (Pinter, Mathew & Smith, 2016). Indeed, “while the curriculum supposedly exists to serve the interests of learners, their preferences, if sought at all, are marginalised and their voices are mostly silent in curriculum making” (Brooker & Macdonald, 1999, p.84). Rather, the curriculum should be created through a systematic and purposeful collaboration between teachers and students, in which the latter are afforded opportunities to shape and develop the aims and content of their education (Brooker & Macdonald, 1999; Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010; Guadalupe & Curtner-Smith, 2020; Oliver & Kirk, 2015). Our objective is to better meet the needs and wishes of (vulnerable) vocational education students by including these students and their teachers in planning, acting/observing and reflecting on the life skills curriculum. The following questions will be answered: (1) How and when do (vulnerable) vocational education students participate in curriculum negotiation?, (2) What are relevant factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities in this context? and (3) What is the impact of participating in curriculum negotiation activities on (vulnerable) vocational education students’ personal development and school connectedness?

Methods – Participatory Action Research was selected as the methodological and theoretical framework. This study was conducted with two classes of a large vocational education institution in the south of the Netherlands. Class 1 consisted of 12 students (17-20 years old) and their teacher. Class 2 consisted of 15 Syrian students (17-19 years old) and their teacher. The first round of data collection took place between June 2022 and January 2023. A second round will start in February 2023 in which the number of participating classes will be expanded. Students were asked to devise, develop and carry out a lesson for their peers. The following methods were used: participant observation, taking field notes, researcher journal entries, critical reflections and focus group discussions with students and interviews with teachers. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used for thematic content analysis (Davis, Campbell, Hildon, Hobbs & Michie, 2015; Michie et al., 2005). In our case, the TDF contributed to establishing those factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities as well as reflecting on the impact on students’ development and their school connectedness.

Results – As we are still in the process of collecting data, the results and conclusions are preliminary. We expect to have the final results and conclusions ready this Summer. The methodology allowed students to be the driving force during the planning and acting/observing phase. Each group of students co-created and made decisions about for example content, activities, location and speakers for their own lesson. Some relevant factors that influenced implementation were teacher competences, knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities and relationship between teacher and students. Students gained knowledge and practised skills while planning, developing and carrying out their own lesson, Moreover, while participating in the lessons developed by their peers, they got into contact with topics that interested them. Also, students’ motivation, participation and engagement increased. They also gained more insights into what it entails to design an informative lesson. Students found it difficult to come up with activities which were interactive and engaging as many of them only had previous experience with lessons which are predominantly instructional and one-directional.

Conclusions – Future research should assess whether this methodology would also be suitable for other subjects as well as in different school contexts. Also, more insight is needed which examines if such methodologies can fit within existing educational structures.

Study design – Participatory Action Research was selected as the methodological and theoretical framework. It can be described as an iterative process of planning, acting/observing and reflecting (Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). Its objectives are “to produce knowledge and action directly useful to a group of people” as well as “to empower people at a deeper level through the process of constructing and using their knowledge” (Nieuwenhuys, 2004, p.210). Participants and setting – This study was conducted with two classes of a large vocational education institution in the south of the Netherlands. Class 1 consisted of 12 students (17-20 years old) and their teacher. Class 2 consisted of 15 Syrian students (17-19 years old) and their teacher. Data collection – The first round of data collection took place between June 2022 and January 2023. A second round will start in February 2023 in which the number of participating classes will be expanded. The planning phase started with brainstorm session to come up with topics. After dividing these topics among groups of two or three students, they received the following assignment: to devise, develop and organise a lesson for their peers. A further three to four sessions were spent on this task. During the acting/observing phase each group carried out their own lesson for their peers. Numerous methods were used in the reflecting phase. Participant observation involved the first author writing field notes describing the activities and content that occurred during each session as well as classroom interactions. These were complemented with researcher journal entries. Each student-led lesson was concluded with a critical reflection together with the students. Both the planning and acting/observing phase ended with a focus group with each class as well as interviews with both teachers. Data analysis – The transcripts and notes were coded and analysed using Atlas.ti. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used for thematic content analysis (Davis, Campbell, Hildon, Hobbs & Michie, 2015; Michie et al., 2005). It consists of 14 domains: knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, optimism, emotions, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about consequences, reinforcement, intentions, goals, memory, environmental context and resources, and behavioural regulation. In our case, the TDF contributed to establishing those factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities as well as reflecting on the impact on students’ development and their school connectedness.

As we are still in the process of collecting data, these conclusions are preliminary. We expect to have the final results ready this Summer. We developed a methodology based on lessons learnt from previous literature as well as from our own experiences with working with vocational education students. This methodology allowed students to be the driving force during the planning and acting/observing phase. Each group of students co-created and made decisions about for example content, activities, location and speakers for their own lesson. Some relevant factors that influenced implementation were teacher competences, knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities and relationship between teacher and students. The students positively looked back on participating in curriculum negotiation activities concerning the life skills program. They gained knowledge and practised skills while planning, developing and carrying out their own lesson. Moreover, while participating in the lessons developed by their peers, they got into contact with topics that interested them. Also, students’ motivation, participation and engagement increased. They also gained more insights into what it entails to design an informative lesson. Students found it difficult to come up with activities which were interactive and engaging as many of them only had previous experience with lessons which are predominantly instructional and one-directional. Future research should assess whether this methodology would also be suitable for other subjects as well as in different school contexts. Also, more insight is needed which examine if such methodologies can fit within existing educational structures. Lastly, the impact of such curriculum negotation initiatives on citizenship should be examined.

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. Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health psychology review, 9(3), 323-344. Enright, E., & O'Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can I do it in my pyjamas?’Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203-222. Guadalupe, T., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2020). ‘It’s nice to have choices:'influence of purposefully negotiating the curriculum on the students in one mixed-gender middle school class and their teacher. Sport, education and society, 25(8), 904-916. 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. Nieuwenhuys, O. (2004). Participatory action research in the majority world. In: Frase S, Lewis V, Ding S, Kellett M, and Robinson S (eds): London: SAGE. Oliver, K. L., & Kirk, D. (2015). Girls, gender and physical education: An activist approach: Routledge. Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian primary English classrooms. ELT Research papers, 16(03). Rodríguez, L. F., & Brown, T. M. (2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New directions for youth development, 2009 (123), 19-34.