Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: five arguments for student voice

INTRODUCTION Student voice, as a means to incorporate the ideas of young people in education, has (re)emerged over the last 20 years (Bovill, 2012; Thiesen & Cook-Sather, 2007). Interest in student voice has burgeoned, especially in countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Fielding (2004) euphorically speaks of a wave in student voice initiatives, referring to the reemerging field of student voice in the U.K. that included encouraging students to articulate their views, peer support arrangements, students as researchers, and supporting student leadership. Some authors go so far as to argue that student voice is a movement focusing on diversity of practice and the commitment of learners and practitioners to the principles of social justice, democracy, active citizenry and children's rights (Czerniawski & Kidd, 2011, p. xxxv). Sinnema and Ludlow (2013), compared the ideas surrounding educational reform in Australia, England, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, finding that student agency and voice are one of the central aspects of a new policy framework in all of these countries. Despite the apparent enthusiasm, examples of students' involvement in curriculum development are rare. Allowing students to have a say can present a multitude of opportunities for participation that will be presented as arguments further on. Student participation can be formal, in which students are invited to participate in the decision-making process within, for example, school councils. It can also be informal, involving students in varied aspects of their education. Examples include the evaluation and hiring of teachers, the selection of foods offered in the cafeteria, policy development to increase safety in the halls, increased number of group assignments by teachers. Regardless of how one goes about it, involving students includes more than simply getting their opinion. Their voice should also have an effect. According to Lundy (2007, p. 933), four elements of student voice can be identified: 1. Space: Children must be given the opportunity to express a view. 2. Voice: Children must be facilitated to express their views. 3. Audience: The view must be listened to. 4. Influence: The view must be acted on, as appropriate. Our particular interest is in the application of the concept of student voice in the process of curriculum design. In a series of case studies we have analyzed how this can be organized in secondary education classes. We found that the involvement of students contributed to the relevance of the curriculum by involving students as stakeholders who articulate their unique perspectives on certain themes. Teachers found this approach inspiring but also demanding (Bron & Veugelers, 2014). In this chapter our focus is on the rationale for including student voice. Why should we put effort in enabling students to participate in curriculum design? We argue that students in secondary education are entitled to participate in the discussion of topics relevant to their learning. A set of five arguments, drawing on both literature and our own work, is presented. Five Rationales for Student Voice Work The following set of arguments draw on two articles in particular, one by Huddleston (2007) and the other by Kirshner and Pozzoboni (2011). Huddleston, of the English Citizenship Foundation, wrote a publication on effective practice in democratic school governance in European schools for the Council of Europe. In this publication, Huddleston explores theoretical perspectives on student participation and introduces three types of what he calls justifications based on the prior research of Rowe in 2003. According to Huddleston, justification for student participation can be normative, educational and instrumental. An example of a normative argument is the right to participate. Children are entitled to express their views on matters that affect them directly such as their education. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.