Participatory research approaches – in general, not specifically targeted at students – are characterized by several central components: 1) participation of non-researching actors as co-researchers in the research process; 2) empowerment of these partners through learning processes, competence development, and individual and collective (self-)empowerment; and 3) the dual objective of researching and changing social reality and the associated intervention character and action/application orientation of research (von Unger, 2014, p. 10). Beside the development of participatory research, a new understanding of childhood emerged, according to which children and adolescents are subjects with their own rights and not simply objects or beings to be protected (James & Prout, 1997). This also applies to research (Hammersley, 2017). Participatory research with students means that they should not be studied, but they should be involved in the research process and should be also assisted in building their own view and meaning considering their situation (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). Furthermore, participation in research is seen as an advanced form of participation and thus as an important source of participatory experiences (Hüpping & Büker, 2019). However, the approach – children as co-researchers – evokes many controversial discourses (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Hammersley, 2017). 

In this paper we present an ongoing design-based-research project (Euler, 2014) taking place in Switzerland. The school improvement project has the aim to improve students’ learning within schools through student participation. School improvement processes should be shaped through the cooperation between teachers, students, and researchers. Various participatory settings were implemented (Author et al., 2022) to approach the central question of the study: How must learning processes be designed so that students feel supported in their learning?

Students were expected to come up with new, or even unconventional ideas to change school practices.

However, they sometimes only know their own school practice, wherefore they sometimes lack alternatives. This gave rise to the idea of reciprocal school visits, with the aim of observing concrete classroom activities in another school. A more abstract aim was to support reflection about learning and observing learning situation from a new perspective. The research team suggested the method of systematic classroom observation addressing students and teachers as co-researchers.

In this contribution the authors describe the process of how the observational study was prepared, conducted, and followed up. We will explore the question of what kind of effects the process triggers in the schools – but also among the participating teachers, students, and researchers.

The classroom observations were embedded in a three-step process: (1) planning and designing; (2) im-plementation and on-site feedback; (3) reflection and further development. The steps were precisely docu-mented to allow for later analysis. Since this was a small pilot project, the group of participants was kept small: ideally, one teacher, the prin-cipal, and four students were involved in each school. Additionally the research team consisting of six per-sons was engaged. The first phase, (1) planning and designing, took place at the university with all participants (observing students, teachers, and school leaders). First, the method of systematic observation was introduced. Then summarized characteristics were presented, which the students of the four schools had previously named to describe good learning during lessons. Then three groups were formed, which developed observable categories based on the input and wrote them down. These were reviewed, sorted, discussed in plenary and then a final version was drafted. The school visit was then planned and the setting including the type of on-site feedback was defined. The second phase, (2) implementation and on-site feedback, took place in the schools, involving the local participants and the observation team, and two researchers. Regularly two lessons were observed, and the break was used for informal exchanges. The observation team had 45 Minutes time to discuss their obser-vations and plan the on-site feedbacks in the observed classes. In the fourth lessen, the on-site feedback took place: Mostly the students and the observing teacher transferred their observation to the observed classes. The observed class received the option to ask questions. The third phase, (3) reflection and further development, took place again at the university with all partici-pants. Experiences and the possibilities were discussed: How can the method be further developed? Which characteristics of the feedback should be redesigned? How to disseminate experiences in the schools? How to use the method within schools? How can further participants be involved? In the ongoing analysis, we evaluate different data and triangulate the results with each other. Discussions in small groups were recorded and their contents were structured and analyzed (Kuckartz, 2014). From this data, participants concepts of good learning were derived. To evaluate the whole process, the organization of the school visits – smoothness, difficulties, barriers – and also the short questionnaires filled out by all observing participants were analyzed and compared be-tween the schools and the groups of actors (teachers, students, and researchers).

We will present different experiences and results and convinced that they are not Switzerland-specific but can be used in other countries as well: Research as an open process is unusual in pedagogical settings. Teachers expressed doubts about the expected results from such observations. E.g.: “What good does it do us if we know how often students asked questions during the lesson?” The question represents an ex-pectation, that activities should be goal- and use-oriented from the beginning. The irritation considering such open inquiry processes demonstrates that teachers lack of this kind of experiences. Teachers were also afraid of being judged within the observations, which was a worry that had to be taken into considera-tion. Students as observers, although the observation method was explicitly defined as a non-evaluative (low inferent observational categories) method, change usual power relationships within schools, giving more power to the observing students and making observed teachers, who have to act spontaneously, more vul-nerable. Researchers are required to reassess scientific and methodological standards. Observations must be manageable in given, short time frames. Also there is a shift from the results to the process of inquiry, where learnings emerge not only from the results but from the method and the process themselves.

Author et al. (2022). Euler, D. (2014). Design-Research – a paradigm under development. In D. Euler & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Design-Based Research (pp. 15–44). Franz Steiner. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. Falmer Press. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (2., durchges. Aufl.). Beltz Juventa. von Unger, H. (2014). Partizipative Forschung: Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01290-8