The World Upside Down: Students Negotiating Their Classroom Curriculum

• In Event: The Roles of Student Voice, Participation, and Youth-Adult Partnerships in Promoting Student Development

Abstract

Objectives: While student voice is an emerging field of study and practice in education (Thiessen, 2007), examples of student involvement regarding the curriculum are rare (Bron, 2013). This paper presents the results of explorative case studies of an intervention that enables students to participate in curriculum development, to address the following research questions: What can students contribute to the curriculum in terms of new perspectives and relevance? And does this form of student voice contribute to development of citizenship and certain 21st century (Binkley et al., 2010) skills such as expressing one’s view, collaboration, negotiating and making decisions?

Theoretical framework: Our theoretical framework for the involvement of students in curriculum development is based on three domains: student voice, citizenship education, and curriculum development. We consider student voice a way for providing students opportunities to practice citizenship-as-practice (Lawy & Biesta, 2006). The position of the learner in the curriculum has been theorized and explored by scholars ranging from educational reformists such as Dewey (1938) and Freinet (1946), to curriculum theorists like Eisner (1979), Goodlad (1979), and Boomer (1982; through his idea of "negotiating the curriculum"). Moreover, student participation is advocated by the democratic school movement (Mikel, 2011) and in the context of school reform (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009).

Modes of inquiry: We present the results from two case studies conducted in two secondary-level schools, at both the classroom and school levels. The case study method fits the explorative phase of our work, while contributing to our understanding of curriculum negotiation in real life situations.

Data sources: We analyzed student worksheets using a coding scheme that emphasized student development and negotiation skills; we conducted pre- and post-intervention interviews with teachers that focus on the teachers’ ideas on the curriculum and the intervention. Furthermore, we used a student questionnaire that provided data on the context, students' development with participation, and their opinions on voice. Finally, we conducted classroom observations that focused on better grasping the actual process in its context.

Conclusions: We found that students and teachers valued curriculum negotiation. It added to the development of students' skills as well as to the curriculum. Students enjoyed working in groups and felt that this improved their learning. They were content with their role in the negotiation process, and accepted that not everything is open for negotiation. Students provided unique perspectives to the curriculum, but these sometimes got lost in the negotiation process. In general, students chose perspectives that were in line with what they traditionally expected in school. Interestingly, many students felt insecure and somewhat befuddled by so much choice and responsibility. Moreover, the intervention raised fundamental questions for teachers: What are relevant objectives and content? How should students' progress be evaluated? What teaching resources can be used and how?

Scholarly significance of the study: Student involvement in curriculum negotiation is rare. We investigated how student voices can enhance curricula and how that process benefits students' development of citizenship and 21st century skills, filling an important gap in our knowledge.

Author

• Jeroen Gerard Bron, SLO - The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development