Page 62 - Getting of the fence

Chapter 3
of student participation, namely school governance and curriculum development, in an Australian secondary school context. Fielding (2001), presents a student voice typology, exemplified by longitudinal research project that took place in two secondary schools in the United Kingdom. And finally, Lodge (2005) explores the value of student voice in school improvement. She first presents a matrix in which an approach to student voice can be analysed along two dimensions, which is followed by an analysis of three projects that took place in primary and secondary schools in the United Kingdom. An analysis of these typologies reveals that each typology contains three distinct perspectives, which we have labelled: Learners as data source, Learners in dialogue, and Learners as initiators.
The Learners as data source perspective describes the inclusion of student voice as information-providing. Within this perspective, students get the chance to voice their opinion or understanding of a certain concept without the option of engaging in a conversation. The Learners in dialogue perspective, however, concentrates on the dialogue between students and, for example, researchers or teachers. Within this dialogue, students are valued as co-creators of knowledge. The difference between the Learners in dialogue and the Learners as initiators perspectives is that, in the first, the initiative is taken by the researcher or teacher, whereas in the second, the initiative is taken by the students.
Apart from Lee and Zimmerman (1999), the typologies presented in Table 3.1 are explicitly hierarchical when it comes to valuing the different perspectives. Hart (1992) distinguishes eight degrees, labelling the first three as “models of non- participation” (p. 9) and the following five as “models of genuine participation” (p. 11). Fielding (2001) also argues, that “the students as researchers mode is linked to a set of assumptions and values that are preferable to the other three levels” (Fielding, 2001, p. 137). Although less explicit, Holdsworth (2000) mentions that levels such as ‘Being heard’, can be used to give decisions-makers the feeling that they are doing the right thing. That this sense of including student voice through so-called ‘Tokenism’ (Hart, 1992) seems to be the shared objection against the Learners as data source perspective is exemplified by Lodge (2005) who suggests that when students’ voice is included merely as a data source they become simply “consumers providing feedback” (p. 132).
In contrast to the Learners as data source perspective, Hart (1992), Holdsworth (2000), Fielding (2001), and Lodge (2005) argue that what we have called the Learner in dialogue and the Learner as initiator perspectives do suggest some level of active and constructive involvement. This assumes that students have agency
60