Key Takeaway: This excellent study provides helpful insight and context to student voice practices (SVP) and instructional approaches linked to student voice. It highlights the significant work needed to reach authentic implementation.
Criteria: Respected scholars in the field, clear, complete, and concise literature review, mixed methods methodology provides richer findings.
Resource: Link
Authors and Title: Conner, J., et al., (2024). The pedagogical foundations of student voice practices: The role of relationships, differentiation, and choice in supporting student voice practices in high school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 104540.
Summary and Insights: This study investigated the implementation of Student Voice Practices (SVPs) in two urban high schools recognized for their student voice work. The research centered on three key questions:
1. Classroom-Level SVPs
- Findings: Teachers occasionally solicited student feedback on teaching and educational planning but rarely engaged students in collaborative decision-making about curriculum, learning activities, assessments, or classroom rules.
- Distinctions: The study clarified the difference between feedback, input, and collaborative decision-making, adding nuance to existing research.
- Survey Data: Despite these schools being regarded as leaders in student voice, SVPs were rare at the classroom level. Few teachers actively sought student input, and even fewer engaged in collaborative decision-making.
- Micro-Practices: Teachers and students identified small-scale SVPs (e.g., adding feedback questions to exams) that were effective and could be replicated more easily than large-scale interventions.
2. Instructional Approaches Linked to SVPs
- Teachers who used SVPs often employed other pedagogical strategies such as:
- Interactive Classrooms
- Offering Student Choice
- Differentiated Instruction
- Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP)
- The study helped clarify that while these strategies support student participation, SVPs are distinct practices that complement them.
3. Relationships Between Pedagogies and SVPs
- The study found strong links between students’ perceptions of positive teacher-student relationships, differentiation, and choice with the use of SVPs.
- However, some findings were unexpected:
- Interactive Classrooms were not associated with SVPs in the survey data.
- Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) was negatively associated with collaborative decision-making, possibly due to cultural norms within the predominantly Latino student population.
Implications for School Leaders:
- Expand Collaborative Decision-Making: Encourage teachers to go beyond feedback mechanisms and involve students in more meaningful collaboration around classroom decisions.
- Promote Micro-Practices: Support small, manageable SVP initiatives (e.g., feedback questions) that can be integrated into everyday teaching without requiring large-scale changes.
- Integrate Pedagogical Strategies: Provide professional development on combining SVPs with other effective practices like differentiation and offering choice.
- Cultural Sensitivity: Recognize that some student populations may view SVPs as culturally discordant; tailor approaches to fit the cultural context of the school community.
- Data-Driven Approach: Use both qualitative and quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of SVPs and refine strategies accordingly.
In summary, the authors while student voice practices are gaining attention, their implementation remains limited at the classroom level. School leaders must focus on promoting deeper collaboration, supporting accessible practices, and ensuring cultural relevance to make SVPs more widespread and impactful.
LEARN Comment
This study provides clear and concise descriptions of key concepts and instructional practices related to student voice including differentiated instruction, student-teacher relationships, and interactive classroom strategies. It could be used as a jigsaw reading for school principals and other instructional leaders.