Co-creation and decision-making with students about teaching and learning: a systematic literature review

被引:0
作者
Esther M. A. Geurts
Rianne P. Reijs
Hélène H. M. Leenders
Maria W. J. Jansen
Christian J. P. A. Hoebe
机构
[1] Maastricht University,Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI)
[2] Public Health Service South Limburg,Department of Youth Health Care, Living Lab Youth South Limburg
[3] Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg,Department of Pedagogical Studies
[4] Public Health Service South Limburg,Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI)
[5] Fontys University of Applied Sciences,Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health
[6] Maastricht University,Department of Medical Microbiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI)
[7] Public Health Service South Limburg,undefined
[8] Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+),undefined
[9] Maastricht University,undefined
来源
Journal of Educational Change | 2024年 / 25卷
关键词
Co-creation; Curriculum; Decision-making; Student participation; Student voice; Participatory action research; Teaching and learning;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Involving students in shaping their own education allows for more suitable, acceptable and effective education. We focus on how student voice is embodied in the context of teaching and learning as well as relevant factors for implementation and the impact of student voice activities on students' personal development and school connectedness. This systematic literature review provides an overview of qualitative studies which focus on involving 12–20 year-old students in co-creation and decision-making in the context of teaching and learning. The 15 included studies indicate that students were involved in various phases and were assigned multiple roles and responsibilities. There was a tendency to include students as advisors in planning, as co-researchers in acting/observing and as reviewers in reflecting. Relevant factors for implementation were knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, optimism, emotions, social/professional role and identity, and social influences. Those students who participated increased their skills, confidence and ownership. Ongoing challenges remain with granting students various opportunities for taking diverse roles in each research phase. Future research is needed in more diverse school contexts and which assesses the long-term impact on students’ development and their health, well-being and social position.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 125
页数:22
相关论文
共 107 条
[1]  
Atkins L(2017)A guide to using the theoretical domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems Implementation science 12 1-18
[2]  
Francis J(2018)Got Health? Action researching a student-led health promotion program Canadian Journal of Action Research 19 33-47
[3]  
Islam R(2016)Co-creating curriculum in higher education: promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning International Journal for Academic Development 21 28-40
[4]  
O’Connor D(2011)Articulating student voice and facilitating curriculum agency The Curriculum Journal 22 381-399
[5]  
Patey A(2020)Connecting students and researchers: the secondary school student’s voice in foreign language education research Cambridge Journal of Education 50 429-449
[6]  
Ivers N(2014)An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51 15-25
[7]  
Grimshaw JM(2007)“Student voice” and governmentality: the production of enterprising subjects? Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 28 343-358
[8]  
Berg S(2014)What students want to learn? Involving students in negotiating the social studies classroom curriculum Journal of International Social Studies 4 3-16
[9]  
Bradford B(1999)Did we hear you? Issues of student voice in a curriculum innovation Journal of curriculum studies 31 83-97
[10]  
Robinson DB(2003)Why action research? Action research 1 9-28