The Use of Student Voice to Inform Communities of Practice in the Lesson Design Process: Conclusions for System Leaders Seeking

to Increase Student Engagement

Mark Edward Knight

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

University of Washington

2009

Program Authorized to Offer Degree: College of Education

University of Washington Graduate School

This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a doctoral dissertation by

Mark Edward Knight

and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final

examining committee have been made.

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

__________________________________________________________________ Michael A. Copland

Reading Committee:

__________________________________________________________________ Michael A. Copland

__________________________________________________________________

Kathy Kimball

__________________________________________________________________ Stephen Fink

__________________________________________________________________

Steven L Tanimoto

Date:__________________________

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of the dissertation is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for copying or reproduction of this dissertation may be referred to ProQuest Information and Learning, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346, 1-800-521-0600, or to the author.

Signature _____________________________________

Date ________________________________________

University of Washington

Abstract

The Use of Student Voice to Inform Communities of Practice in the Lesson Design Process: Conclusions for System Leaders Seeking

to Increase Student Engagement

Mark Edward Knight

Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Associate Professor Michael A. Copland Educational Leadership & Policy Studies

More than ever, our nation is putting pressure on our public schools to ensure that all

students achieve. Unfortunately there is large disconnect between this goal and what

many students are able to demonstrate in terms of their skills and knowledge. What is

often missing from the conversation is that learning is not done by mandate; rather it is

done through a conscious effort by educators to engage students in the material that the

greater community deems important. This type of learning requires a deeper

understanding on the part of teachers about the students that enter their classrooms. It

requires a change in the traditional teacher-student relationship which suggests that

teachers are the experts and students are passive receivers. Instead, students must move

to the forefront and be allowed to have a voice in their education. This places the teacher

in the position of listener and allows them to gain insight into what engages students in

their learning. Therefore, system leaders are faced with the challenge of how to best

provide the capacity for student voice to influence teacher practice so that the end result

is an increase in student engagement and overall achievement. The intent of this action

research study is to look at a small suburban high school’s use of student voice in the

lesson design process and how that leads to greater engagement in the classroom.

Through the use of student focus groups, teachers were able to learn about their students

prior to designing classroom activities. Qualitative methods of observations and

interviews were used over a 7-month period of time involving 30 secondary teachers and

38 students in grades 10-12. What was discovered was that students in this process

experienced a high degree of empowerment over the fact that adults were interested in

what they had to say regarding their interests and experiences. While it is too early to tell

if this method leads to an increase in student achievement, overall, the study concluded

that the use of student voice activities in this setting increased the engagement level of

both students and teachers.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1. Engagement and Student Voice ........................................................................ 1 Introduction and the Problem of Practice ............................................................... 1 The Local Context................................................................................................... 3 Activities Influencing This Project ......................................................................... 6 Literature Influencing This Project......................................................................... 9 End Product........................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2. Inquiry Design................................................................................................. 18 The C4D Proposal................................................................................................. 18 The Student Voice Pilot Project............................................................................ 19 Framing the Problem of Practice .......................................................................... 21 My Location within the Project ............................................................................ 26

Chapter 3. Methods........................................................................................................... 28 Type of Study........................................................................................................ 28 Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 28 Participants............................................................................................................ 29 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 32

Chapter 4. Making Sense of the Data ............................................................................... 35 Personal Observations and the Focus Groups....................................................... 35 Focus Group Preparation ...................................................................................... 35

Video Team Story:.................................................................................... 36 Social Studies Team Story 1 ..................................................................... 42

Group Processing .................................................................................................. 44 Social Studies Team Story 2:.................................................................... 46 Math/English Team Story:........................................................................ 48

Results ................................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 5. Conclusions, Implications, Essential Learnings, and the Future of Student Voice in the School District..................................................................... 58 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 58 Implications........................................................................................................... 63 Essential Learnings ............................................................................................... 66 The Future of Student Voice in the School District.............................................. 68

ii

List of References ............................................................................................................. 70

Appendix A. Images of School Chart ............................................................................... 73

Appendix B. Interview Focus Groups – Administrator Questions ................................... 74

Appendix C. Interview Focus Groups – Teacher Questions............................................. 75

Appendix D. Interview Focus Groups – Student Questions ............................................. 76

Appendix E. Parent Permission Letter.............................................................................. 77

Appendix F. Teacher Participation E-Mail....................................................................... 78

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number Page 1. School District 1998 Demographics (OSPI 2007).......................................................... 5 2. School District 2007 Demographics (OSPI 2007).......................................................... 5 3. School District - Free and Reduced Lunch (OSPI 2007)................................................ 6 4. High School GPA by Ethnicity - 2006-2007 .................................................................. 6 5. School District Lesson Design Policy.......................................................................... 19 6. School District Lesson Design Policy - Student Voice Pilot Project............................ 21 7. Teacher Participation: Percentage Participation versus Years of Experience .............. 30 8. Content Area Teacher Participation: Percentage Participation by Department............ 30 9. Student Participation: Percentage of Participants per Grade Level .............................. 31 10. Percentage of WOW Academy Student Participants by Ethnicity ............................. 32

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Page 1. Timeline of Study ......................................................................................................... 29 2. Youth Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 64

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the faculty of the Leadership for Learning Program in the College of Education at the University of Washington. Their guidance and instruction made the last three years a life changing experience. A special thanks goes to my advisor, Dr. Mike Copland, for his advice and insight into the world of doctoral research. I would also like to thank the staff and students that played a significant role in making this study happen. Finally and most importantly, to my wife Kim, and children Andrew, Rachel, and Melissa who allowed their husband and father to spend the necessary time to get things done. Your sacrifices are appreciated.

1

CHAPTER 1. ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT VOICE

Introduction and the Problem of Practice

The 21st century learner requires a different approach from educators in order to

increase achievement in the classroom. It necessitates a higher emphasis on activities

that engage learners in the standards that have been developed by federal, state, and local

authorities as measurements of learning. To accomplish this task, a greater emphasis

needs to be placed on activities that allow for the emergence of student voice. This focus

provides an opportunity for adults to develop a greater understanding of the needs,

concerns, and struggles of today’s students as well as the means by which they access and

process information. It also demands a close examination of how educators view their

role in relationship to classroom practices especially regarding the design of lessons and

units of study. For the system leader, the challenge is to create the conditions in which

student voice informs teacher practice leading to the design of engaging lessons for the

classroom.

In order for this challenge to proceed, it is important to examine the concept of

engagement, its relation to student achievement, and its connection to student voice.

Interestingly, research on the concept of engagement is relatively new thus a unified

definition of the term does not seem to exist. However, the literature suggests that there

are some common themes that provide insight into its meaning. First and foremost,

engagement “reflects a person’s active involvement in a task or activity” (Appleton,

Christenson, & Furlong, 2008, p. 379). This involvement has been described as

“infectious enthusiasm” (Renzulli, 2008), which causes students to persevere “in the face

of difficulty” (Schlechty Center, 2008). Engagement is also “associated with positive

academic outcomes, including achievement and persistence in school; and it is higher in

classrooms with supportive teachers and peers, challenging and authentic tasks,

opportunities for choice, and sufficient structure” (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004,

p. 87). Ultimately, engaged students tend to earn higher grades, perform better on tests,

and drop out at lower rates, while lower levels of engagement place students at risk for

2

negative outcomes such as lack of attendance, disruptive classroom behavior, and leaving

school prior to graduation (Klem & Connell, 2004).

Just as significant, the process of engagement is about building connections

between the students and the adults that work in the school setting. “As such,

engagement is the opposite of alienation, isolation, separation, detachment, and

fragmentation. Persons are engaged to a greater or lesser degree with particular other

people, tasks, objects, or organizations” (Newmann, 1989, p. 34). Therefore, in order for

high levels of engagement to exist, there must also be mechanisms in place that will

allow for open communication between adults and students. This is where the concept of

student voice enters the picture. At the most basic level, “being heard” becomes a

starting point where “school personnel listen to students to learn about their experiences

in school” (Mitra, 2006, p. 7). The hope is that this action will lead to a stronger student-

teacher relationship that creates higher levels of engagement.

Unfortunately for students, education has traditionally been an endeavor in which

they have limited control, participation, and voice in regards to their learning. Adults

create the standards as well as the lessons that will hopefully teach the corresponding

skills. Student input into these areas is rarely solicited even though they are the ones

being held responsible in the learning process. Thus a situation is created whereby

students are asked to meet requirements in areas in which they are not engaged.

Put most directly, it means that the group most affected by the direction of

educational policy, namely students and young people, currently have no

“official” voice. It is certainly not the case that they are hapless victims.

The evidence suggests the contrary. They are actively exercising their

right to resist, which means they are making choices to not learn. (Smyth,

2006, p. 282)

In this situation, heavy reliance is placed upon external motivators such as sanctions or

rewards in order to push students toward mastery. However, “students who are

motivated to complete a task only to avoid consequences or to earn a certain grade rarely

3

exert more than the minimum effort necessary to meet their goal” (Brewster & Fager,

2000).

The Local Context

As a context for this challenge, the Cascade Valley (pseudonym) School District

in Washington State has developed core beliefs around engaging students in the work

provided by teachers. Over the past 10 years, the district has partnered with an outside

agency, the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform (SCLSR). This

organization, based in Kentucky and founded by Dr. Philip Schlechty, an educational

researcher and philosopher, works with districts across the country through the Standard

Bearer Network to create a framework on which to build a clear vision as they attempt a

“transformation from a compliance and attendance based organization to one that

nurtures attention and commitment at all levels in the system” (Schlechty Center, 2008).

In this vision, it puts the student in the center and asks teachers to design engaging work

that students will find meaningful and interesting. In looking at Cascade Valley over

time, it would appear as though the district has benefited from this partnership in that

there has been an obvious shift in staff development, budgetary focus, communication,

and collaboration towards engaging students in the work they are given in the classroom.

This has required a close examination of the various roles that people play inside a

learning organization and how they change with this new vision.

As far as the community of Cascade Valley is concerned, there is an interesting

mix between the past and present as the area is in the middle of a transformation process

from a more rural setting, to one that relies heavily on commerce. On one hand, there is

the presence of a small town feeling that is usually associated with areas that are a great

distance from urban centers. Many families that live in the area have done so for several

generations. They farmed the land and attended Cascade Valley schools; something their

children and grandchildren do today. However, as with everything, the community is in

the midst of change. What was once a farming based economy with single dwelling

homes has turned into a vision of capitalism. With the Port of Tacoma increasing in

traffic just to the north of Cascade Valley, so too have arisen mega industrial warehouses

4

on top of the fields that once produced cabbage, lettuce, and other vegetables. Right next

to these complexes are large-scale single and multi family developments that are

currently under construction. In a short time, these could double and even triple the

present population of the city. In addition, the middle of Cascade Valley has become a

commercial corridor bordering Interstate 5. A multitude of car and recreational vehicle

dealerships, large-scale furniture stores, and a sizeable casino now stand where smaller

“mom and pop” businesses once thrived.

Because of these changes, the district is experiencing some growing pains. In a

nine-year time-span, 1998 to 2007, there has been an obvious shift in the make-up of the

student population (see Figures 1 and 2). The current trend is that the number of white

students is on the decline and the number of students of color is on the increase, as well

as free and reduced lunch rates (see Figure 3). Additionally, grade point average

statistics reveal the existence of an achievement gap between different ethnicities in the

school (see Figure 4). The end effect is that conversations at all levels in the district now

surround the changing needs of the student population and how to provide them with the

best opportunity to achieve in the classroom. This is especially true as the district

attempts to meet the demands of the state assessments as well as the federal mandates of

No Child Left Behind. This is where the partnership with SCLSR has been valuable. It

helped to focus the conversations around what it means to be a true learning organization

and the roles that people play in such a system (see Appendix A). In this setting, the core

business of schools is to “design engaging academic work for students and lead them to

success in that work” (Schlechty Center, 2009). Clearly defining the focus of the

organization allows for a better emphasis on helping students to be engaged in their

education. Prior to this partnership, people often called any attempts at change “random

acts of staff development” due to the fact that educational trends would come and go with

no staying power. However, the vision of student engagement has been in place for

several years and is gaining power across the district.

5

Asian

5%

Indian

4%

Black

3%

Hispanic

8%

White

80%

Figure 1. School District 1998 Demographics (OSPI 2007)

Asian

10%

Indian

3%

Pac. Island.

3%

Black

4%

Hispanic

14%

White

66%

Figure 2. School District 2007 Demographics (OSPI 2007)

6

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1998 2006

Figure 3. School District - Free and Reduced Lunch (OSPI 2007)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

American

Indian

Asian Black Hispanic Multi Race Pacific

Islander

White

Figure 4. High School GPA by Ethnicity - 2006-2007

Activities Influencing This Project

One of the means utilized by the district to address some of the achievement

issues began in the winter of the 2006-2007 school year. At that time, district leaders put

a policy in place to increase student engagement through the emphasis on strategic lesson

design. The concept of Working on the Work (WOW) Academies was developed to

target teachers since lesson development is their responsibility. To get them to

participate, an incentive based model was used which provided them with two days of

time out of the classroom, access to a laptop computer, a protocol called Coaching for

Design (C4D) to provide a roadmap in the design, and a facilitator to guide them through

7

the process. The premise behind the C4D model is that traditionally, teachers have

employed a planning model when developing lessons and units of study. The problem is

that planning typically begins with an activity or content and asks the student to adapt

and fit that activity. Instead, C4D focuses on lesson design which begins with a hard to

teach or learn concept based upon student data (Washington Assessment of Student

Learning [WASL] scores, classroom based assessments, etc.). Using specific knowledge

about the students, lessons are built around their needs, motives, and values so that the

hard to teach or learn concept can be addressed in a more engaging manner. As an

additional piece to the policy, a communities of practice approach was implemented so

that the lesson design could be done in teams. This concept will be explored in greater

detail in chapter 2. Communities of practice refers to the idea that informal teams that

share common interests and passions can come together in order to solve problems. In

the case of this policy, the creation of these teams was left up to the teachers so that those

individuals interested in focusing on a particular area of student achievement could work

together toward a common goal. Since the implementation of this policy, Dr. Steve

McCammon (2008), declared that, “our approach toward NCLB, which in most districts

is considered “No Child Left Behind” but in our district is widely referred to as “No

Concept Left Behind.”

Shortly after the implementation of the WOW Academies, the faculty and

administration at Cascade Valley High School began to have conversations surrounding

diversity and the changing demographics of the school. The purpose of these

conversations was to determine how the changes to the school would influence the nature

of teaching and learning in the classroom. During this time, it was determined that it

would be beneficial to gather student input on the issues of diversity within the school.

As a result, the staff selected five students of diverse backgrounds to participate in a

diversity summit sponsored by the local Educational Service District. Upon their return

from this event, the students began to talk with the administration about several negative

school situations related to diversity that they either experienced themselves, witnessed

first-hand, or had relayed to them by friends. They admitted that these events were never

reported to staff at the school.

8

It was at this time that the summit students and the Cascade Valley administration

decided the faculty needed to hear about these issues so that everyone had a better grasp

of what students of diverse backgrounds were experiencing on the campus. A “fishbowl”

activity was designed where the summit students served as a focus group during a general

faculty meeting. In this activity, the staff sat in a large circle surrounding the small group

of summit students. One faculty member served as a facilitator of the conversation with

the students. The entire faculty was to remain silent and listen as the facilitator asked

questions regarding experiences at the school that the students experienced. Each student

had an opportunity to share their thoughts to the large group.

Following the “fishbowl” activity, the students were excused allowing the faculty

time to reflect upon what they had heard. Overall the reaction by the faculty was one of

shock toward what the students had relayed. It was certainly contrary to their beliefs as

to how all students were treated at the school. As a result, the students were invited back

at a later faculty meeting to identify one area of focus related to diversity that could be

addressed by the school. Through a process of elimination, the combined group elected

to focus on the topic of “words that hurt.” With this hard to teach concept in mind, the

summit students and a select group of teachers participated in a WOW Academy so they

could use the C4D process to design a lesson for the entire student body. Over a two-day

span of time, the group created a lesson surrounding a video that they scripted and

produced using the video productions department at the school. The end result was a

virtual assembly where teachers lead students through a guided discussion on the effect

of word choice in a culturally diverse setting.

Concurrent with the “fishbowl” activity that was underway, administrators in the

district were having conversations with a large computer software company regarding the

work that was happening in the district. In the midst of that conversation, it was revealed

that prior to this company producing and distributing a product to customers, that they

conduct a series of focus groups. The purpose of these groups is to solicit customer

needs and desires when it comes to the product. The philosophy behind this way of

doing business was very clear – get to know your customer. Interestingly enough, this

philosophy was very similar to the work being done in the Cascade Valley School

9

District. As mentioned above, the C4D protocol helps teachers to design lessons but only

after they have a chance to really know their customers, the students.

The experience of listening to students’ voicing their concerns over issues in the

school in a controlled setting resulted in an end product that was tailor made to the

students at Cascade Valley High School and appropriate to their needs as a group. With

that in mind as well as the conversations that occurred with the software company.

Cascade Valley administrators began to see the potential of using student voice to

influence outcomes directly related to teaching and learning. Starting with the 2008-2009

school year, Cascade Valley system leaders began the push toward making student voice

a major focus in the conversations surrounding engagement. As a result, a new

component was added to the lesson design policy. As part of the student data collection

process used prior to the lesson design, teams from Cascade Valley High School began to

pilot student focus groups as a means of gathering additional information. The emphasis

is on questioning students about how they process information related to the content. The

goal is to use this information in tailoring lessons that will make the hard to teach

concepts more manageable. It is also meant to strengthen the teacher-student relationship

through the creation of a process whereby teachers listen to student experiences, and

students have the opportunity to speak. In the end it is the hope is that both of these goals

will lead to greater student engagement in the classroom.

Literature Influencing This Project

Three major issues have emerged that contribute to the need for educators to look

at student voice within the context of engagement. The first of which is the mandates

surrounding No Child Left Behind and its focus on standards and assessment. This

policy has saturated public school classrooms with strict educational edicts which all

students and teachers are required to meet or exceed. A visit to the Education World

(2008) Web site reveals that the political and educational communities have created

pages and pages of standards to cover almost every conceivable function in our schools.

In all there exist 12 detailed sets of national standards around the various school

disciplines (i.e., fine arts, language arts, and mathematics). Combined with the

10

exhaustive record of individual state standards (which often overlap or conflict with the

national standards) and local standards that emphasize graduation and behavior, it all

becomes hard to comprehend and problematic to manage.

Nevertheless, in this era of accountability, it has become the job of educators to

uphold these standards and deliver them to students. Then students are given a barrage of

assessments to ensure that the educators are doing their jobs correctly and that the

students are learning what is deemed essential by the agencies responsible for developing

the standards. Kohn (2000) summarized this situation in the following manner:

The top-down, heavy-handed "Tougher Standards" movement has taken

over many schools, with full support of business groups, politicians, and

many journalists. Primary opponents are classroom teachers and parents.

Raising standards translates into higher scores on poorly designed tests.

Unfortunately, what is often missing from this movement is that standards are not alone

in addressing the needs of students in the educational setting. In order to facilitate

learning, students must have more than just a decree or raised bar that they must jump

over. Students must be personally connected with the material so that they have a reason

to want to meet the standards placed in their path.

To make such a decision to comply with the institution of schooling, the

young person has to have some personal connection to the school, a stake

in what the school is perceived to offer, and a sense of the worthwhileness

of the schooling experience. The young person has to decide to comply

with the school experience and school staff, rather than reject and resist

them. The starting point for facilitating such decision making by young

people is likely to be when the school, its teachers, and leaders reach out

to such children, move to meet them rather than expecting them to adjust

to the entrenched school and teacher paradigms, and attempt to engage

them in relevant and interesting school experiences in which they can

recognize themselves, their parents, and their neighbours. (Angus, 2006,

p. 370)

11

In other words, the act of establishing a standard does not address whether it is relevant to

the student or whether they are engaged in the process of learning said standard.

The second issue to emerge which creates the need to focus on student voice and

engagement is the technological revolution that has exploded across the globe. Today the

proliferation of personal cell phones and electronic music devices permeates the culture.

The same could be said for a trip to the homes of our students. Personal computers have

become one of the centerpieces of the family dynamic. With the Internet, e-mail, texting,

instant messaging, Myspace, and Facebook to name a few, students have the ability to

amass huge quantities of personal contacts or “friends,” as well as access to infinite

amounts of information.

A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a

“singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there

is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and

rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th

century. (Prensky, 2001, p. 1)

It is evident that these “digital natives” are being affected by the changing world around

them.

Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to

parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text

rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They

function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and

frequent rewards. (Prensky, p. 2)

This access to technology has caused teachers to struggle more with the traditional role as

deliverers of information. Since many students have this information at their fingertips,

they become less patient with sitting in rows performing one task at a time. And as

students continue to increase their “network” of friends, they are less likely to turn to

adults for the answers and direction. The bottom line is that this generation of learners

12

processes information differently from the generation before—the ones that are creating

the standards and delivering the lessons in the classroom. It is here that student voice

becomes a crucial step in understanding and acting upon this difference.

Like those in charge of the health care and legal systems, educators think

that we know what education is and should be. Because we have lived

longer and have a fuller history to look back upon, we certainly know

more about the world as it has been thus far. But we do not know more

than students living at the dawn of the 21st century about what it means to

be a student in the modern world and what it might mean to be an adult in

the future. To learn those things, we need to embrace more fully the work

of authorizing students' perspectives in conversations about schooling and

reform--to move toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Because

of who they are, what they know, and how they are positioned, students

must be recognized as having knowledge essential to the development of

sound educational policies and practices. (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 12)

To address both issues mentioned above, educators must redefine the role of the student

and the overall scheme of the learning process. As far as the student is concerned, their

place in the system is much like that of an “indentured volunteer.” Schlechty (2001)

suggested that while their attendance is mandatory, the effort and attention they give to

the tasks at hand is dependent upon the level of engagement students have with the

material and what it means in their life. He also described the contemporary student as a

“customer of quality schoolwork” much like a consumer who shops a store based upon

the value of the product that is offered. These concepts of student as “volunteer” and

“customer” are somewhat radical in the education world where the traditional view of the

student is one of “empty vessel to be filled” or even “inmate in the prison.”

A change in the students’ role, necessitates a change in the teachers’ role.

Schlechty (Schlechty Center, 2008) described this as a shift towards a “leader” and

“designer of engaging work for kids” rather than the traditional role of performer,

presenter, or diagnostician. He continued to point out that the work they provide to

13

students is one of the only things that they have complete control over when it comes to

their job. They do not control which students are assigned to their classroom, the

previous knowledge these students bring with them, the standards that are created by

legislators, or the bell schedule of the school. Brewer and Fager (2000) pointed out that

“teachers can influence student motivation; that certain practices do work to increase time

spent on task; and that there are ways to make assigned work more engaging and more

effective for students at all levels.” With that in mind, it would make sense that a

teacher’s best use of time and energy is in improving the quality of the work given to

students. As far as this is concerned, Wasserstein (1995) drew five conclusions for

teachers to consider when creating work for students: (a) students of different abilities

and backgrounds crave doing important work, (b) passive learning is not engaging, (c)

hard work does not turn students away, but busywork destroys them; (d) every student

deserves the opportunity to be reflective and self-monitoring, and (e) self-esteem is

enhanced when [students] accomplish something [they] thought impossible. One

potential method for creating this environment comes from Hidi (1990) who discussed

the concept of situational interest. This is where a teacher generates conditions and/or

stimuli in the classroom that focus attention to a particular topic or concept. She argued

that this can play an important role in learning, especially when students do not have

“pre-existing individual interests in academic activities, content areas, or topics” which

described most of our students relative to our core academic disciplines. Additionally,

she suggested that the utilization of this method “could make a significant contribution to

the motivation of academically unmotivated children.”

The third issue related to engagement and student voice comes in the increased

levels of student dissatisfaction that are emerging across the country. Newmann (1992)

suggested that,

Engagement involves psychological investment in learning,

comprehending, or mastering knowledge, skills, and crafts, not simply a

commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high

performance such as grades or social approval. Students may complete

academic work and perform well without being engaged in the mastery of

14

a topic, skill, or craft. If fact, a significant body of research indicates that

students invest much of their energy in performing rituals, procedures, and

routines without developing substantive understanding. (p. 12)

In fact, data from 2003 indicated that 3.5 million youth and young adults ages 16–25

years old had not earned a high school diploma and were not currently enrolled in school.

Additionally, since peaking at 77.1% in 1969, high school completion rates had declined

to estimates as low as 66.1% by 2000 (Barton, 2004). Combined with 2006 data that

suggests that 50% of our students are bored every day in high school (Yazzie-Mintz,

2006), it is apparent that there is an alarming trend happening in American education.

Interestingly enough though, of those student who indicated they were bored, close to

75% of the students cared about their school (Yazzie-Mintz). This suggests that there are

different types of engagement that occur in the school that are influenced by the social

context and the ways in which individuals process their environment (Furrer, Skinner,

Marchand, & Kindermann, 2006). These differences include cognitive, behavioral, and

emotional engagement; each of which lead to the academic, social, and emotional success

or lack thereof for students.

One possible means to address these different levels of engagement is the use of

student voice. Three studies in this emanating from the United States, Canada, and

England involved educators bringing students into the school reform process to seek their

opinions as to how best to carry out change. The Manitoba School Improvement

Program (MSIP) in Manitoba, Canada and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative

(BASRC) in California both found that “students improved academically when teachers

construct their classrooms in ways that value student voice-especially when students are

given the power to work with their teachers to improve curriculum and instruction”

(Mitra, 2004, p. 653). More specifically, the MSIP “found a correlation between an

increase in student voice in the school culture and an increase in school attachment”

(Mitra, p. 653). These studies also uncovered that the effects of the student voice

activities extended beyond the classroom.

15

In some schools parents can be an active barrier to change as they fear

what they consider to be ‘experimentation’ on their children. But when

their children talk to them about their experience of schooling, and parents

really hear, there can be far more openness to considering alternative

practices. (Levin, 2000, p. 160)

In regards to the BASRC, students were given the opportunity to serve on “Student

Forums” that would provide educators with useful information about the classroom.

Student Forum members served as "experts" of the classroom experience

in a variety of activities. They provided teachers feedback on how students

might receive new pedagogical strategies and materials through

participation in teacher professional development sessions, such as a

training on developing standards-based curricular units. Throughout the

training sessions, they shared with teachers how they would receive the

new lessons being developed and suggested some ideas for how to make

the lessons more applicable to students' needs and interests. (Mitra, 2003,

p. 293)

In the third study, beginning teachers in England were trained on a new approach

for the classroom called student consultation. Rudduck (2007) described this as:

. . . seeking advice from students about possible new initiatives; inviting

comment on ways of solving problems, particularly about behaviours that

affect the teacher’s right to teach and the student’s right to learn; and

inviting evaluative comment on school policy or classroom practice.

Consultation is a way of hearing what young people think within a

framework of collaborative commitment to school reform. (p. 590)

The benefit of this system is that student consultation helps teachers develop a

practical agenda for themselves, while at the same time providing for stronger self-

esteem for students.

16

Overall, the literature points to the following conclusions around the use of

student voice in the educational setting:

Engaged students are central to lasting school improvement. The reality is that

most schools are not organized in a manner that will allow for students to be active

participants in the discussions on school improvement. In both the MSIP and BASRC

examples mentioned above, structures were changed over periods of time at both the

school and classroom levels to bring students into the conversation about learning. What

was discovered was that this change helped to “re-engage alienated students by providing

them with a stronger sense of ownership in their schools” (Mitra, 2003, p. 290). It also

provided students with a sense of belonging which implies an “active engagement with

the organization” (Levin, 2000, p. 164). Overall, “increasing student voice has been

found to improve student learning, especially when student voice is linked to changing

curriculum and instruction (Oldfather, 1995, p. 136).

Teachers’ attitudes can be changed through student voice. In order to move

students to a level of engagement that will provide them with ownership and belonging in

the school setting, teachers must be convinced that student voice has benefits not only for

students, but for themselves as well. As with Cascade Valley’s fishbowl activity, the

studies mentioned above found that having students involved in the conversations on

learning did change the way teachers reacted to forms of information.

. . . data from students had a powerful influence on the willingness of

teachers to consider real change. Many teachers were quite able to reject

external research as a basis for change, and even to reject the experience

of other schools. But when surveys of students in their own school showed

significant levels of boredom or disaffection, teachers found this evidence

compelling. (Levin, 2000, p. 159)

In addition, the physical presence of students at gatherings influenced the way many

teachers behaved with each other and how they interacted.

Just having students present in the room changed the tenor of meetings.

Resistant teachers particularly were less likely to engage in unprofessional

17

behaviors such as completing crossword puzzles during staff meetings or

openly showing hostility toward colleagues. (Mitra, 2007, p. 734)

The end result is that many teachers reported the need for a more cooperative relationship

between adults and students. They discovered that,

Teachers cannot create new roles and realities without the support and

encouragement of their students: students cannot construct more

imaginative and fulfilling realities of learning without a reciprocal

engagement with their teachers. We need each other to be and become

ourselves, to be and become both learners and teachers of each other

together. (Fielding, 2001, p. 108)

End Product

The overall goal of this project is to guide the future use of student voice activities

as a means of increasing engagement in the Cascade Valley School District. It is hoped

that by the end of the study, conclusions can be drawn around this process and the

methods used to incorporate student voice into the educational setting. These

conclusions will inform the future adaptations of WOW Academies and the structure of

the C4D protocol. Since this is the primary means of increasing student achievement in

the district, the entire school system will benefit from any potential changes. More

specifically, it will lead to the construction of a Student Voice Initiative Web site

intended for use by staff, students, and parents in the greater Cascade Valley community.

This Web site will serve as a guide for teachers to create proposals around hard to teach

concepts that they wish to bring to the WOW Academy setting. The Web site will also

house research around student voice, engagement, and communities of practice so that it

can help guide teacher practice.

18

CHAPTER 2. INQUIRY DESIGN

The C4D Proposal

As mentioned earlier, the C4D protocol emphasizes the use of lesson design

around student needs and interests. This is in contrast to the traditional lesson

development process used by teachers which emphasizes planning and creating activities

based around the subject matter. The tool was adopted in the Cascade Valley School

District during the winter of the 2006-2007 school year. From that time until the fall of

2008, several teams of teachers were able to experience the protocol consisting of several

steps intended to assist with the design process. These steps included (see Figure 5):

1. School/classroom data. This step involves the location and collection of

various forms of data that exist in the school. This could include WASL

scores, other achievement test scores such as SAT/ACT, and Classroom Based

Assessments.

2. Identification of hard to teach and/or learn concepts. This step involves

mining the data from the previous step for obvious indicators of student

difficulty. These indicators point to concepts that teachers have problems

teaching or that students have problems learning.

3. Specific student data. Teachers are asked in this step to identify students

inside their own classrooms that are struggling with the concepts. They are

asked to describe the characteristics of these students including their previous

grades, their interests, and needs.

4. Coaching: A facilitator intervenes during this step to make sure that the

teaching team has a good grasp of the information surrounding their students.

5. Lesson design. Armed with the knowledge from the previous steps, teachers

can then go and design lessons that are specific to their students.

6. Lesson delivery. This step is back in the classroom where the teacher, or

teachers, present the lessons designed.

19

7. Lesson assessment. This step involves the assessment of the students that

takes place after the lesson presentation to see if there is improvement in the

students’ understanding of the concept(s).

8. Lesson evaluation. This step involves the teacher evaluating whether the

lesson met the intended outcome. This information can be used as data back

in the beginning steps thus creating a cyclical process for lesson design.

School/Classroom Data

(WASL, Classroom Based Assessments, SAT/ACT…) 

Identification of Hard to Teach and/or Learn 

Concepts

Specific Student Data(Previous grades, reading level, interest areas ….) 

Coaching(Working with a 

facilitator to blend specific student data with hard to teach 

and/or learn concepts)Lesson Design

Lesson Delivery

Student Assessment

Figure 5. School District Lesson Design Policy

The Student Voice Pilot Project

Starting in the fall of 2008, the staff at Cascade Valley High School began a pilot

project which created additional steps in order to utilize student voice as a part of the

protocol. These steps included (see Figure 6):

20

1. Target Group. This step requires staff to identify a specific student target

group experiencing difficulty with the hard to teach or learn concept. In many

cases this group is determined by test scores or other classroom based

experiences.

2. Target Questions. This step involves the creation of questions to be directed

toward students—specifically the members of the target group mentioned

above. The intention of these questions is to find out why students find

concepts difficult or to determine how they think and learn.

3. WOW Team. This step involves the identification of staff members who are

interested in improving student achievement in the hard to teach and learn

concept area.

Following these steps, a critical piece to the student voice process was added—student

focus groups. In theory, the use of focus groups would allow the WOW Team to meet

with members of the student target group with the intent of learning more about the

intricacies of the modern day K-12 student. The WOW Team members were charged

with conducting the focus groups and asking the questions that were developed in the

previous step. It was also their role to evaluate the student responses in order to assist

with the next steps in the lesson design process. The goal of these additional steps was to

solicit student voice as one aspect of increasing the knowledge that teachers have

regarding their students. The hope was that this information would be included in the

lesson design process so that the final lesson outcome better engages students in the

classroom.

21

School/Classroom Data

(WASL, Classroom Based Assessments, SAT/ACT…) 

Identification of Hard to Teach and/or Learn 

Concepts

Specific Student Data(Previous grades, reading level, interest areas ….) 

Coaching(Working with a 

facilitator to blend specific student data with hard to teach 

and/or learn concepts)Lesson Design

Lesson Delivery

Student Assessment

Specific Target Group

Student Focus Groups

Target Questions WOW Team

Figure 6. School District Lesson Design Policy - Student Voice Pilot Project

Framing the Problem of Practice

Overall, this study attempts to address a question of system level leadership which

states: “How can a learning organization create the capacity for student voice to

influence teacher practice around lesson design so that the end result is an increase in

student engagement and overall achievement?” In order to answer this question, two sub

questions must be discussed in relation to student voice:

Subquestion 1. If one of the goals of this study is to influence teacher practice,

how does this process contribute to their professional and social needs resulting in a

22

greater investment in their roles as designers of engaging work for students? In other

words, how does this process increase the engagement levels of teachers so that it

influences them to change their practice around lesson design? For the most part, in

order for teachers to feel successful in their jobs, they need to have a certain level of

professional and social satisfaction. On the professional side, this may appear in the form

of administrative support, collegial dialogue, and systems and tools that will aide them in

completing their job. Socially, teachers need to be surrounded by colleagues that share

their interests and concerns. They also need to have positive interactions with the

students that are in their care on a daily basis. Unfortunately, in many schools, these

situations do not always exist. Over the years, teachers have acted in isolation inside the

classroom delivering content along with diagnosing and taking corrective actions when

necessary around certain lessons. The act of collaborating with other teachers on a

concept while soliciting student input can be quite foreign. In other situations, they are

forced to work in teams with people that do not share common interests or desires

concerning the future of students. Either way, this can leave teachers in a professional

and social void.

In the Cascade Valley School District, WOW Academies operate on the basis of

the communities of practice theory. For that reason this study will use this theory as a

lens in order to draw conclusions on the questions above.

Communities of practice are groups of people informally bound by shared

expertise and passion for joint enterprise. In organizations that value

knowledge, they can help drive strategy, solve problems quickly, transfer

best practices, develop professional skills, and help recruit and retain

talented employees. (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 139)

Communities of practice differ from other organizational forms such as formal work

groups, project teams, and networks because they are informal and have the ability to set

their own agenda as well as leadership structure. In Cascade Valley, informal teams with

a common goal of improving student achievement around a concept could apply to

23

become part of a WOW Academy. This left the team formation, the direction of the

team, and the leadership inside the team entirely up to the members.

Three key components make up the foundation of the Communities of Practice

theory. Each plays a role in the WOW Academies and the pilot project involving the

student focus groups.

1. Participation. This involves the make-up of the team that comes together and

the work they do as a team in arriving at a shared meaning and understanding.

It can refer to an individual’s involvement in the development of questions,

interactions with students in the focus group, observational records/data

collection, and personal conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Negotiation of Meaning. Negotiation of meaning refers to the means by

which change turns into practice. It “relates to the intersection of the

interactions among the people in learning communities (participation) and the

resulting understandings (reifications)” (Coburn & Stein, 2006). Negotiation

of meaning is what happens during the participation process which leads to

greater common knowledge and similar practice. In the case of the pilot

project, it can involve the mining of the data collected, conversations about

the focus group process, and conversations about the data that lead to team

meaning.

3. Reification. Reification is the substance that is created as part of the meaning-

making. It is not only the hands-on tangible materials; it is also common

ideas and concepts that emerge as a result of the negotiation process.

“Reifications emerge from social processes and provide a concrete

representation of the processes that produced them by capturing and

embodying experience in fixed form” (Coburn & Stein, p. 29). In the case of

the pilot project, it involves the things that are produced that demonstrate

evidence of a change in teacher practice around lesson design and engaging

work for students.

24

Overall, if the use of Communities of Practice provides teachers with the necessary

professional and social support, then they will have a greater investment in the process.

This in turn will result in a more serious look at the hard to teach/learn concepts and a

greater desire to design work for students. In other words, the potential is there to

increase the engagement of teachers in their work. If teachers are not engaged in the

process, then the hopes of them producing work that is engaging for students is quite

slim.

Subquestion 2. If the overall goal of this study is to increase student

achievement, how does this process contribute to satisfying their academic and social

needs, resulting in a greater investment in their educational setting? Just like teachers,

students also have needs in the education setting. For the most part, their needs can be

summed up in the academic and social realms. Academically, students need to be

challenged with relevant curriculum that is age and time appropriate. As volunteers in

the system, they pick and choose from the menu that is put in front of them by teachers

and make decisions as to what they are able and willing to accomplish. Socially

speaking, they need to interact with their peers while at the same time build strong

relationships with the adults that are in charge of their education.

Unfortunately for many students, one or both of these needs are not met in the

educational setting. “What is most troubling is that those students who struggle

academically or socially-emotionally all to often are students of color, second language

learners, or students of poverty; the voices of these students are often muted or even

silenced in most schools” (Campbell, 2009, p. 19). As a result, we have an inequitable

situation that creates higher drop-out rates for minority students as well as the

achievement gap that exists in our public schools across the nation. Rather than devote

time to the students and their individual or group needs, fault for the failure is often

attached to the students that are struggling. The term for this action is called

“pathologizing” which refers to:

. . . a process of treating differences as deficits, a process that locates the

responsibility for school success in the lived experiences of children

(home life, home culture, SES) rather than situating responsibility in the

25

education system itself. In large part because educators implicitly assign

blame for school failure to children and to their families, many students

come to believe they are incapable of high-level academic performance.

(Shields, 2004, p. 112)

Whether this occurs in open public view through policies or procedures that are

discriminatory in nature or through hidden means with beliefs and practices of the people

in the system, the results are the same in that equity is not achieved. Going back to the

question at hand, if we seek higher levels of achievement through engagement and

investment on the part of students, then equity must be a goal and a lens by which this

study draws conclusions. In other words, does the process of C4D and student voice

attempt create an equitable situation for students?

So then what is equity and how does it apply to a school system? Before

providing a definition, Kahle (2004) argued that equity has three dimensions. The first

refers to the resources that are available to communities and the families that reside in

that community. The second dimension looks at the system’s educational plan and

practices. This refers to the quality of the curriculum and the preparation of the adults in

that system to deliver this curriculum. It also has to do with how students are treated in

the various subgroups and whether teachers and administrators hold different goals for

specific subgroups as opposed to others in the system. The final dimension of equity is

the outcomes for students and whether different outcomes exist for the various

subgroups. Using these three dimensions, we can define an equitable system as “one in

which identifiable subgroups of people do not experience systemic discrimination in

process, in opportunities, or in negative outcomes without an ethically sufficient reason”

(p. 12). To go even deeper, the system is:

one in which all children have the opportunity to achieve to their fullest

potential or to the levels specified in the system’s performance standards;

one that is committed through its allocation of resources to the equitable

achievement of all culture and gender based student populations;

26

one in which participation of diverse groups, particularly those groups

traditionally under-represented in the system, is expected and facilitated;

one that is accessible; for example, sensitivity to individual variation is

considered; and

one that has policies and procedures established and followed for distributing

and utilizing resources in ways that narrow any identified differences between

subgroups. (pp. 12-13)

My Location within the Project

In addition to being the primary researcher in this project, I have also served a

role within the Cascade Valley School District in carrying out the direction set forth by

the system leaders. As Principal of Cascade Valley High School, it has been my job over

the last two years to help assist teams from my building in their preparations to attend the

WOW Academies. This means that I have been facilitating conversations so that teachers

will be organized to get maximum benefit from the process. These conversations include

the concept(s) that they choose to bring to the C4D process, identifying the target group

of students they feel would benefit from this work, selecting students from the target

population to make-up the focus group, and designing the questions they ask students

inside the focus group. I have also been an observer during the WOW Academies as the

teacher teams work to design lessons.

During the course of the study, my duties did not change in relation to the district

philosophy of WOW Academies and the focus on hard to teach and learn concepts. The

only difference was my observations of the process in regards to how teams used the

student voice information as they proceeded with the protocol. I also directed the data

gathering following the WOW Academies for use in determining the next course action

for my own school as well as the district.

As far as others involved in this study from inside the district, the Superintendent

and WOW Coordinator have been instrumental in setting the vision for the district in

regards to the use of student voice, developing the process by which the C4D protocol

could be utilized, selecting the teams to participate in the WOW Academies, and

27

allocating resources for the WOW teams to meet outside the classroom. Additionally, I

have relied on teacher collaborators to volunteer to work on hard to teach concepts and

developing questions for the student focus groups. Finally, students were also

collaborators through their willingness to participate in the focus groups.

28

CHAPTER 3. METHODS

Type of Study

This study was qualitative in nature since the primary means by which data was

collected was through observations and interviews. Also, due to my position in the

district and the fact that the goal of the study is to inform system leaders about the future

use of student voice in this setting, action research was chosen methodology. In addition

to being an appropriate means of learning from activities and contributing to the

collective knowledge in the district, “action research is based on principles of

collaboration, democratic participation, and social justice and empowerment. These are

the same principles that undergird meaningful student voice efforts.“ (Campbell, 2009, p.

19). Thus, this method is a solid fit for this particular study.

Boundaries

As mentioned in chapter 1, the work involving the C4D protocol began during the

2006-2007 school year. However, the timeframe for this particular study begins later in

time and encompasses the WOW Academies and interviews of participants including

high school staff and students. The first Academy began in October of 2008 and the final

one occurred in March of 2009 (see Table 1). All together, this study encompassed work

done a total of 8 different teams, each attempting to tackle a hard to teach and/or learn

concept. These concepts include:

1. English – art of commentary/analysis in student writing.

2. Math/English – deciphering math word problems.

3. World Languages – fluency issues.

4. Social Studies – research techniques and citations.

5. Career and Technical Education – critical thinking skills.

6. Video Productions – writing process in relation to script creation.

7. Social Studies – economic systems.

8. Social Studies – primary and secondary sources.

29

Work that led up to these academies included staff development during the high school

summer staff retreat, creation of teams within school, prioritization of concepts to bring

to the academies, potential questions to ask students at the beginning of the C4D process,

and the selection of teams to attend academies.

Table 1. Timeline of Study

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Activities 2008 2009 Pre-WOW Academy Meetings

WOW Academy I

WOW Academy II WOW Academy III WOW Academy IV/V WOW Academy VI/VII WOW Academy VIII Teacher Interviews Administrator Interviews Student Interviews

Participants

The participants in the WOW Academies included both staff and students from

the high school. The total number of staff included 30 individuals. They comprised a

wide range of experience and represented several different content areas in the school

(see Figures 7, 8, and 9). Since the philosophy in the district is based upon a

Communities of Practice theory when it comes to the WOW Academies, staff members

created their own teams and decided upon the concepts that needed attention. They then

30

wrote proposals to be reviewed by the district WOW Coordinator and the Superintendent

in hopes that they would be selected to participate.

Figure 7. Teacher Participation: Percentage Participation versus Years of Experience

Figure 8. Content Area Teacher Participation: Percentage Participation by Department

31

Figure 9. Student Participation: Percentage of Participants per Grade Level

As far as student participation in the WOW Academies is concerned, 38 students

took part in the focus groups as a part of this process. The represented all age groups in

the school grades 10 through 12 (see Figure 10). Out of the 38 students, 52% were male

and 48% females. Additionally, the students also reflected the same ethnic demographic

date as shown in Figure 2 in chapter 1 (see Table 2). While teachers in this activity self-

selected, students came to the process in a different manner. Once the teacher teams

were formed and the target group of students had been identified, then came the task of

narrowing down that group to a manageable number for the student focus groups. The

goal was to have between 5-7 students per focus group. As a result, during the course of

the study students were selected to the focus groups in one of two ways. The first way

and the one that was used most frequently in 7 of the 8 WOW Academies involved a

random selection. For each WOW Academy using this method, all members of the target

group were imported into an Excel spreadsheet and assigned a number. Then, using a

random integer generator (http://www.graphpad.com), numbers were randomly selected.

The students who were assigned those numbers were then brought into a room together,

given an introduction to focus groups, and given the opportunity to accept or decline the

invitation. Out of this process, 37 students were randomly drawn, 30 accepted the

opportunity to participate in the focus groups, and 7 withdrew. The second means by

which students were selected to participate in focus groups involved a more deliberate

selection of students. This occurred in 1 of the 8 WOW Academies during the course of

32

the study. Once again a target group was identified for the hard to teach and learn

concept. Then, the team of teachers participating in the WOW Academy hand selected

students that they knew from their class rosters fit within this target group. The idea

behind this was to look at students that did not provide significant feedback during the

school day. The WOW Team wanted to hear from this group so they could design

around them specifically. Using this process, 8 students were contacted to be a part of

this WOW Academy and all 8 participated.

Figure 10. Percentage of WOW Academy Student Participants by Ethnicity

Data Collection

Data collection for this study came in the form of personal observations and

interviews of the participants. As far as observations were concerned, these took place in

three different phases of the process:

Phase 1: Pre-Focus Group Meetings. These meetings took place prior to the

WOW Teams entering the WOW Academies. The make-up of the group

varied between all participants or one to two lead members. The

conversations in these meeting included the selection of the target group, the

33

methods by which students would be selected from the target group focus

group participation, question development, and the focus group protocol

(questioning strategies, note taking . . . ). These conversations ranged

between one half hour to one hour in length.

Phase 2: Focus Group Sessions. These sessions occurred during the actual

WOW Academies. All WOW Team members were in attendance as well as

the student participants. Observations in this setting focused on the flow of

the sessions, the teachers’ role in the focus groups, and the students’ level of

participation throughout the process.

Post-Focus Group Sessions. Following the focus group session, students were

dismissed leaving the WOW Team to wrestle with the information given to

them by the students. Observations here included their conversations

surrounding that process.

The second means of data collection came in the form of interviews following the WOW

Academies. These interviews were done in a focus group setting much like the work

done in the pilot project. Participants for these focus groups consisted of the WOW

Team members and the student focus groups. Their involvement was on a voluntary

basis. In all, a total of 14 teachers participated in 3 focus groups, and 13 students

participated in 3 focus groups. In addition, one administrative focus group was added

with individuals who assisted with the WOW Academies throughout the course of the

study. This group consisted of 2 participants.

Conducting all of these data collection focus groups was an outside facilitator.

Questions were prepared ahead of time and distributed to the participants prior to their

arrival to the focus group sessions (see Appendices B-D). These questions were crafted

toward drawing out their experiences during the WOW Academies. Time was also

allotted during the focus groups for individuals to write out some of their responses to the

questions. These responses were collected at the end of each session for review with the

other sources of data. Also, each focus group was recorded for review at a later date in

order to capture responses and important trends in the data.

34

For purposes of anonymity in the study, all participants in the data collection

process were provided with a special code so their responses would not be attributed back

to them when the results of the research became published. All observational notes as

well as information written through the interview process made use of these codes. The

codes themselves along with their corresponding names have been kept in a secure

location. Also, all student participants in the interview process were required to have

parental permission prior to the start of the data collection (see Appendices E and F).

35

CHAPTER 4. MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA

Personal Observations and the Focus Groups

For the most part, all of the comments and the behaviors exhibited by staff and

students during this study were positive toward the use of student voice as a part of the

lesson design process. That is not to say that everything went smoothly as far as the

planning and questioning phases were concerned. In fact, it was quite apparent that there

was a great deal of apprehension and nervousness on the part of staff in the beginning

stages. During the pre-meetings to develop questions, several people had difficulty

grasping the concept of how students would enter into the C4D protocol and how they

would be able to use the information they gathered from the kids. At the same time,

students also exhibited a level of uneasiness in the beginning stages at the prospects of

joining their teachers for a conversation about the classroom. However, once the WOW

Academy focus groups got underway, this anxiety on the part of both groups evaporated

and the conversation and transfer of information was able to occur. As a result of this

work, staff and students were able to discuss and write about their experiences at the end

of the study in the interview focus group settings. After a careful review of this data, it

becomes apparent that the results of the study can be categorized into three specific areas

which will be broken down and analyzed in greater detail. These areas include: the

preparation leading to the focus groups, the group process that occurred during and after

the focus groups, and the results of the interactions between the teachers and students.

Focus Group Preparation

In any important endeavor involving education, success or failure often depends

on the preparation that occurs prior to the event. This particular study was no different in

the fact that several comments were directed toward the work that happened or did not

happen in the beginning stages. Two areas of concern quickly emerged as pieces that

caused confusion or that needed further study. The first involved the questioning that

took place of the students in the WOW Academy focus groups. The second surrounded

the student selection process and how they came to be involved in the process.

36

Video Team Story:

“Tim” is a veteran teacher of 20 years – all in the Cascade Valley School

District. He has taught a variety of subjects in that time but most recently

he has been able to work in his passion of video productions. The

program he has developed has had extremely wide success. Students

clamor to get into his classes so they can create episodes of the monthly

school new program or to work on their own pet projects to be shown at

the annual film festival. The program has also been recognized at the state

level with various awards. Needless to say, Tim has created a very

successful operation and is proud of the work his students produce.

However, as with any organization, there is always room for

improvement. Recently Tim has been frustrated with the means by which

his students are developing the stories behind the videos that they shoot.

The problem is that he sees students wasting time shooting and re-

shooting footage because they haven’t spent the time in the pre-production

phase. He knew that the area the students were having difficulty with was

in the script writing part of the development. The problem was that Tim

admittedly was not a writing teacher and did not know how to approach

this subject with his class. He knew that if he didn’t do something soon,

his plans for the class would be put on hold because the videos that the

students were attempting to create were taking longer than anticipated due

to the constant re-shooting.

In an attempt to solve this problem, Tim decided to write a proposal for a

WOW Academy. His hard to teach and learn concept involved script

writing as part of the pre-production phase of the video development. He

included an English teacher, ”Jane,” and another video teacher, “Kevin,”

to help him with this concept. While Jane had attended a WOW

37

Academy in the past prior to the student voice pilot project, this was going

to be a new experience for both Tim and Kevin.

In the days leading up to the WOW Academy, Tim had some pre-

Academy conversations with his administration in order to help identify

his target group of students and the questions he would use in the focus

groups. He decided that his target group would be current or former video

production students. Following that conversation, students were selected

at random from the target group and were prepped for the focus group

conversation. On the morning of the WOW Academy, the team gathered

to begin the process. They were introduced to the C4D protocol by the

district WOW Coordinator and then turned loose to begin the work.

However, it soon became evident that the team was not ready for the focus

groups to begin. They became nervous as they realized that they only had

a couple of questions written for the students. As a result, the team took

the next hour to break down the hard to teach and learn concept. Then

they enthusiastically collaborated on questions that would solicit the

necessary information from the students. During this time they were able

to receive assistance from the WOW Coordinator.

Once the questions were created, the students were brought in and the

focus group got underway. As it turned out, all five of the students

selected were current students in the video class. Three of the five were

beginning students. Following this session, the students were dismissed

and the team was able to analyze and discuss the data they recorded. One

of the major discoveries was that the students were unable to transfer the

writing skills they had learned in an English classroom for use in the video

productions setting. The team realized that the lesson that they would

design at the end of the C4D protocol would need to link the curriculum

38

that the students have experienced in the English classroom to video

productions.

In addition to analyzing the student data, the team also spent time

reflecting on the preparation needed prior to leading the focus groups.

Tim acknowledged that he struggled when it came time to create the

questions for the students because he didn’t know how to structure them in

order to get the best results. He also recognized that there was very little

collaboration prior to the team coming together for the WOW Academy.

While the team felt that they had gathered good information from the

students, they realized that their initial preparatory work had been

insufficient for the work needing to be done, and that more extensive prep

was crucial to the success of the focus groups.

Since soliciting student voice through focus groups is a relatively new concept for most

teachers, the means by which to get students to provide helpful information in this setting

proved to be a difficult task. In order to make this happen, questions must be carefully

thought out and structured in a manner that will make the students feel comfortable

enough to share their thoughts and experiences. Since this is a crucial piece to bring forth

and encourage student voice, it would make sense that this step in the process deserves

significant attention prior to meeting with the focus groups. However, as in the case of

the video team mentioned above, not every group experienced success in this area. These

groups either spent a limited amount of time in question preparation or struggled in some

fashion to pull the questions together in a cohesive manner. In the interview focus

groups, several teachers shared some level of frustration at this step in the project.

It was a painful process [question development]; it was a good process but

it was difficult to scaffold the questions. (English Teacher)

A lot of people will ask “yes” or “no” questions where you should ask

“why” or “how” questions. It takes a while to get into that mode and if

39

you are not careful about it you’re asking those questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to

confirm what you already think instead of letting the student come up with

the answer. (Social Studies Teacher)

It is interesting to note that it wasn’t only the adults that mentioned questioning as a

difficult area in the focus groups. Students also brought up during their interviews that

this part of the process at times seemed to be disjointed and cumbersome.

The questions were a bit awkward at times. Sometimes it would seem that

the teachers didn’t know what they were going to ask so it would slow

down the conversation. Other times it would seem that the questions did

not go in-depth enough. (12th Grade Student)

Some of the difficulty with the questioning appears to be contributed to the newness of

the activities related to student voice. The majority of the teacher participants were

unfamiliar with focus groups as to their format and purpose.

I was nervous going into this because I didn’t know what to expect. I

didn’t have a concept in my mind as to how the focus groups were going

to work even though we watched an example in a faculty meeting. I know

if I do this again I will be better prepared and will plan differently. (CTE

Teacher)

My second WOW Academy was much better. We were able to think

through the questions more because we had been through it once before.

The first time through was a little rough. Our questions were not very

good. (Social Studies Teacher)

Another area of difficulty in questioning came from an apparent lack of clarity on the part

of the teacher participants regarding the actual information they wanted to obtain from

the students. In pre-WOW Academy meetings with administrators, conversations

focused on moving away from content specific questions and instead, emphasizing

40

student processing related skills. This proved to be a difficult conversation since

secondary teachers and the courses they teach are typically content driven by nature.

However, those that ventured into this arena seemed to have some success.

When teachers have asked very specific questions related to content they

get very short limited answers. Where I have seen the most animation is

when the question has been about past experiences, something they could

hang their hat on. When the question could tap into their emotional

intelligence versus just some factual recall things, it seems like we get a

little more. (Administrator)

As it turns out, the conversations and observations involving the focus group

preparations were not limited issues of questioning. A second area that came up

repeatedly had to do with the process of student selection and readiness. Much of the

conversation hinged on the random versus the nonrandom selection methods. As

mentioned earlier, 7 of the 8 WOW Academy focus groups in the study used random

selection based upon the identification of their target group. The remaining WOW

Academy focus group used hand-picked students from the target group to participate. As

teachers spoke about the selection process it became apparent that the random nature was

of concern.

When it was first presented to us about the idea of student focus group that

was one of the problems that I had the fact that it was going to be random

to be honest. I thought that the focus group was going to be designed

where we got to take a look at the high end, the struggling students, and

not as many of the kids that don’t care, we get a better voice as opposed to

just a random sample. (Social Studies Teacher)

The random scared me at first because I really wanted to hear from the

struggling student in with the successful student because I thought we

would get more of a voice. (Social Studies Teacher)

41

Due to the random nature of the selection process, not every group emerged with the

hoped for diversity in terms of the mix of students that would produce the necessary

information leading to lesson design phase. This lack of diversity was not necessarily

related to ethnicity but more to the ability levels of the students selected. Many of the

teachers were hoping for a broader range of skill levels which would then result in a

wider range of responses.

Some of the problems included that fact that there wasn’t the variety [of

kids] that were needed to get the most out of the process. (English

Teacher)

I’m not sure how the students were selected. I think it was random. I

would have liked to have more of a diverse representation of my students

so I could have a better sense of how my students were thinking as a

whole. (CTE Teacher)

Others voiced a certain approval for the random nature of these groups. In most

situations, they provided a wide range of students from which to draw several

perspectives.

I was in a group that did have a random group of students – the non

successful with the successful. I was interested in hearing from that group

that is disengaged in a serious setting because I thought it was impressive

at how these kids in your classroom that are totally turned off but in a

serious setting were able to have a conversation. (English Teacher)

I think that maybe students that are struggling a little bit more in learning

should do it [participate in focus groups] because then teachers could find

out why they aren’t learning as well as they should be. (11th Grade

Student)

42

Additional areas of difficulty resulted from the anonymity of the focus groups prior to the

conversations. In many cases, the staff did not know and could not anticipate the specific

students that would be participating in the WOW Academy focus groups.

I know for my group we changed our questions at least 5-6 times. Then

when we saw our student group we changed them again looking

specifically at those kids and what their level was. (CTE Teacher)

On top of this it was very apparent that in some situations, the students that were

asked to participate did not have much of an idea as to the purpose of the WOW

Academy focus groups as well as their role in these meetings.

It seemed like there were a few kids that didn’t have a clue as to why they

were there. I’m not sure what they were told but they came in cold.

Unfortunately since I was new to the process, I struggled with filling in the

blanks. (Social Studies Teacher)

With experience in the Academy setting, one group seemed to work out some of

the issues mentioned above so that the process provided more information from students

thereby leading to a better outcome in the end.

Social Studies Team Story 1

“Lee”, “Nick”, “Art”, and “Mark” had all experienced at least one focus

group session involving students during the pilot project. “Monica” and

“David” joined the team for the final WOW Academy of the year as they

wrestled with the concept of citing sources for research. They were all

frustrated at their students’ work in this area and came together to try and

improve in this area. Having a more experienced group, they reflected on

the task at hand as well as the work they had done with focus groups in the

previous WOW Academies. During that time, they came to the

conclusion that while the previous focus groups provided great

information to tackle the hard to teach and learn concept, they did not get

43

what they considered to be a full representation of the target group. They

felt that a more representative group would provide even more information

that would help them when it came to the lesson design process.

With this in mind, they skipped the pre-Academy meetings with the

administration and instead spent time on looking at their individual class

rosters and hand-picking the students from the target group that would

provide the full representation they were looking for from the group. On

the morning of the Academy, they sent their list of students to the

administration and asked to have them pulled from class to attend the

focus group. At the scheduled time, those students arrived, were given a

brief introduction to the purpose of the meeting, and then asked a series of

questions related to the skills and experiences in the concept area of source

citation. David was selected to be the primary “inquisitor” during the

session and he read from a list of pre-determined questions. As the

students gave their responses, the remaining teachers in the group all

scribbled notes and in some cases threw out follow-up questions.

Following the session, the teachers sat and discussed what they had heard

and how this would influence the remainder of their work. Much of the

conversation centered on vocabulary related to the concept and how that

would have to play a part in their lesson design. Once their analysis was

complete, the team then went to work on lessons that would helps students

to better understand the concept. As they developed a rough draft, the

then pulled the students back to the table in order to give the less a dry

run. This time, Lee led the group through the initial lesson design in order

to solicit feedback. Again, students were asked questions about the design

and they provided their thoughts as to how this would help in the

classroom.

44

At the end of the second round of questioning, the teacher group discussed

how this format seemed to work better than the random selection of

students that occurred previously in the other WOW Academies. During

this discussion, they were able to point to each student in the focus group

and make reference to their overall contribution. This was something that

they could not do with other focus groups that they experienced. Overall,

they felt that this was a more favorable means of selecting the focus

groups.

While this group deviated from the selection process experienced from the other teams in

the pilot project, they still kept the same philosophy and structure that was consistent in

all of the WOW Academies. The group identified a hard to teach and learn concept, they

identified a target group, they developed questions, they conducted focus groups, and

they used the information from those focus groups in the lesson design process. The only

difference is that they took a different route in selecting students from the target group

which they believed would increase the student voice resulting in a better end product.

Group Processing

As mentioned earlier, the WOW Teams were based on the communities of

practice theory meaning that they came together based upon mutual interest and

familiarity. For the most part, they already had some degree of a working relationship

and knowledge of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. As they started to perform

their work in the Academies, this allowed them to move cohesively toward a common

goal which was to improve their teaching related to their chosen concept. That is not to

say that conflict did not arise. However this aspect was at a minimum and therefore they

could eliminate some of the early stages of group formation and instead concentrate on

the information provided by the students related to the concept. Consequently, two

critical developments emerged because of the information the teachers gained through

their interactions with the students. First, the information changed their perspective as to

the true nature of the concept that was giving students difficulty. Secondly, there was an

45

increase in the degree of the ownership the teachers had with the process, the concept,

and the students’ information.

Again, the C4D protocol begins with the identification of a hard to teach or hard

to learn concept. Using state and classroom student achievement data, teachers narrow

down the topics that they believe give students the most difficulty. Then they bring one

of those to the WOW Academy in hopes designing an engaging lesson or unit that will

help student achieve. However, through the interview focus groups, it became apparent

that the students provided teachers with information that gave them a different

perspective when it came to these concepts. After the students left and the teachers had

the opportunity to analyze the data, one of their powerful discoveries was that in many

situations, the original concept that the WOW Teams brought to the table was not the

concept that needed attention. Instead, it was other supporting skills or knowledge

related to the concept that was missing or with which the students were struggling.

With our department and our process we changed our focus on what we

wanted to do with our WOW Academy after the questions both times. In

other words, we went in with an idea of what we wanted to create a lesson

on, we had the focus group and the we came back and said that they are

really not interested in this right here, but they are interested in this over

here so let’s generate our lesson for the over here and change the concept.

That was an interesting process because the year before we went in with a

hard to teach concept and then we built a lesson and brought it back.

(Social Studies Teacher)

The whole process flipped based on what the students wanted to learn. It

was an interesting change in the whole dynamic of the WOW proposal

because the student’s voice tended to flip the proposal. (Social Studies

Teacher)

Ours flipped too. We came in wanting to redesign a project we have in

our classes and ended up saying this is fine but we need to teach this

46

before we do this so we ended up creating a whole different lesson. It

came down to the fact that they liked the project we were doing, they just

didn’t have the skill to complete it. (CTE Teacher)

Out of all of the groups that participated in the pilot project, the Social Studies Teams

probably had the most insight into this emerging theme. As mentioned in chapter 3, out

of the eight teams in the study, three were from the Social Studies department. Not only

that but in those three teams, three members participated in two of the Academies, and

one member participated in all three Academies. In observing them operating as a group,

it was interesting to note how the teams progressed with each passing Academy.

Social Studies Team Story 2:

At first, these team members were almost rigid when it came to the

concept they were going to attack. They also appeared to have a pre-

conceived notion as to the lesson they were going to design even without

the student input. However, as they gained experience into the process,

several things occurred:

1. In-depth questions. Instead of the simple “yes,” or “no,” questions, the

teams began to plan their questions out so that they would get better

responses from the students.

2. Target group selection. The teams began to see the value in being specific

as to who participated in the focus groups. What started out as random in

the beginning, turned to hand-picked students who were having difficulty

in the end.

3. Duration. The initial Social Studies team focus group was a relatively

quick venture lasting roughly thirty minutes in length. The final one lasted

for approximately ninety minutes due to the extended questions and

dialogue that occurred.

4. Observational notes. By the final WOW Academy, those not asking

questions were taking copious observation notes of the focus group

47

responses and body language. This was in stark contrast to the first group

that simply listened to the student responses.

5. Analysis - By the end, the teams were using their observational notes on a

more regular basis when it came to analyzing the student responses as

well as during the lesson design phase of the C4D process.

Finally the most important piece that materialized from these groups came

in the form of the teacher’s beliefs as to the nature of the hard to teach and

learn concept at the beginning of the process. Following the first Social

Studies WOW Academy, the teams began to relax their initial beliefs as to

the cause of the student difficulty related to the concept and allowed

student input through the focus groups to help identify the real problem.

As a result, the teams changed their initial concept in the middle of the

process and focused their efforts on designing lessons directed at

completely different concepts that were more appropriate to student

learning.

As a result of the WOW Academy focus groups, many of the WOW Teams

changed their focus and attacked different concepts that were more important to the

overall achievement of students. In addition to changing perspectives, it also appeared

that the students provided the teachers with important feedback. At least two of the

WOW Teams took the opportunity to have students return to the WOW Academy after

initial work had been done on the lesson design. It was here that they asked the students

to comment and provide feedback on this work before it received the finishing touches

and ended up in the classroom. One team that exemplified this work was the

Math/English team that came to the WOW Academy to work on strategies for attacking

math word or story problems.

48

Math/English Team Story:

“Joe” is a veteran math teacher of 22 years. He readily states that math

comes naturally to him. When he sees a problem – either in equation or

word form, he knows immediately how to arrive at an answer. He realizes

that the majority of his students don’t have this ability and often struggle

with problems in the textbook. This is especially true with the word

problems that occur on the state assessment. In looking at the scores

strands in this area for the current 10th grade class, he realizes that his

department needs to make some immediate corrections. Joe seeks out the

advice of “Holly”, a relatively new English teacher in the school who

doesn’t care for math and struggles when it comes to solving equations.

They both come to the conclusion that the issue is more of a reading

comprehension issue rather than one of mathematical ability.

Unfortunately, Joe is not a reading teacher and doesn’t have the

knowledge to assist kids in this area. So together, Joe and Holly write a

proposal around solving math word problems to be considered for a WOW

Academy. Joining them in this effort are “Sid”, an English teacher, and

“Maggie”, a brand new math teacher.

After the group identified their target group and devised some questions,

they were ready for their focus group. The students that were randomly

selected seemed eager to participate even though they really didn’t enjoy

nor were they particularly good at math. Nevertheless, the focus group

went forward and the team was able to collect data. Joe indicated that the

focus group didn’t really give him much insight into what the students

were thinking. Instead it confirmed what he already believed about how

students felt about word problems. However, the team proceeded to work

through the C4D protocol, using the student data to design lessons around

their hard to teach and learn concept. What they designed was a thinking

strategy that could be taught to students in an English classroom. This

49

strategy was to help students break down word problems into simple steps

which would allow them to create an equation out of the written message.

The only problem was that the team didn’t know if the strategy would

work.

At this point, the team decided to bring the focus group back to the table and test

out the strategy. The first thing they did was to give a brief lesson on the steps in the

strategy. Then they let the students in the group have time to process what had been

presented. The teachers then asked for feedback into the design and then sat back and

listened as the students told them what they thought of the strategy. By the end of the

conversation, the teachers had changed the order of the steps, and added two additional

steps in order to meet the needs of the students. Then, once the strategy was in place, the

teachers gave the students a real world word problem involving cell phone rates and told

them to use the strategy to come up with an equation. The teachers then sat back once

again and watched the students in action. What they saw gave them encouragement and

satisfaction. The students started to work at a furious pace to not only come up with an

equation using the strategy, but they were also trying to solve the problem which was

something not required of them in this exercise. Without assistance from the teachers,

the students were working together, persevering when they ran into roadblocks, and

pushing to come up with an answer. In other words, they appeared to be engaged in the

process. In the end, the team had the opportunity to receive feedback beyond the normal

focus group experience that they could use to make a better product for the classroom.

Following this experience, the teachers noted in the interview focus groups that

this format allowed them to make adjustments based upon feedback from the students.

It is not just the initial voice that helped in this process but getting

feedback in the middle helped as well. (English Teacher)

Another group commented that they were also able to receive feedback that helped to

adjust the design prior to it going into the classroom.

50

One of the things [in the WOW Academy] was to try and get the kids to

analyze. So we had questions set up to ask them what critical thinking

means to them and what it meant to analyze. Contributions they made

were that they were able to give us their definitions of key words related to

critical thinking, such as summarize and analyze. I think it is very easy to

define summarization, every kid seems to know how to summarize, but

they don’t know how to analyze and most don’t know what that means. In

many cases, their definitions did not match my definitions. And so that

was a great contribution because I knew where they were coming from.

(CTE Teacher)

And, it appears that the feedback worked both ways as the students were able to gain

some valuable perspective about their teachers.

After a WOW Academy one of the students mentioned that she had no

idea that her teachers worked so hard to get things ready for us. I just

thought that there was a book and that someone just told them what to do.

(Administrator)

In addition to the group process helping to change the perspectives of the teacher

participants, it was also evident that their ownership of the process also changed. And, it

could be argued that with a change in ownership also brings a change in engagement

levels. One of the major goals of this project is to increase student engagement through

student voice activities. However, an increase in teacher engagement would be an

important piece to increasing student engagement. If teachers are truly engaged in their

students’ learning, the more effort they will place toward the lesson design process.

Through the interview focus groups and observations, it became clear that as time went

on, the teachers embraced the process of the student voice activities. Initially there were

some fears on the part of staff going into the WOW Academies. Most people in new

situations, experience some degree of hesitation, nervousness, and reluctance. For some,

the thought of placing control in the hands of students is threatening.

51

It is natural for us to feel a little threatened. We are giving up a bit of

control here and we are admitting that we don’t know everything. That is

a different role. It is a much more collaborative role. (Administrator)

As the focus groups got underway and the conversations developed, teachers

indicated that their initial fears and pre-conceived notions about what would happen

quickly faded.

Having never done a WOW Academy before, I was a little intimidated

thinking about kids coming in. After doing it I would definitely do this

again. I learned a lot. It completely changed the way I do that

assignment. (CTE Teacher)

I was surprised about how much they did have to say and were willing to

give that information. (Social Studies Teacher)

In our particular group there were five students and I knew one of them.

The rest of them for whatever random reason they all came from [another

teacher’s] classes instead of mine and the one kid that came out of my

class I really did not want there. I really think I gained the most insight

from him because he has lots of other issues and so his perspective was

really valuable in what he was getting and what he wasn’t getting about

the assignment. There were other kids that I didn’t know that [another

teacher] said really stepped up and made comments that were surprising.

(CTE Teacher)

Actually hearing that they thought that this would work [the new lesson

design] and was useful was pretty neat. (Social Studies Teacher)

I thought that the focus group was really a good way to generate some

good dialogue from a kid that really wants to get it but doesn’t or really

52

wants to be successful but just doesn’t have that process down or

something is getting in the way. I think from the ones that I have watched,

those voices are starting to creep out and become a little louder and maybe

give some advice that is powerful. (Social Studies Teacher)

One of the more powerful comments came from an individual that had been an observer

in a good portion of the WOW Academy focus groups. She remarked at how quick

people were to make the transition to a new way of doing business and that while our

intended outcome was to increase engagement with students, this process had the effect

of increasing the engagement of staff as well.

At this point I would not be able to advocate secondary teachers designing

without the use of student voice. I’ve seen it to be so powerful. At this

stage I don’t know how powerful it has been on the students yet, I think

we have a ways to go with that to help them make a deeper connection,

but for the teachers to have that experience of listening has been really

huge to the point where I am seeing teachers tip in their chair and their

whole body language is leaning forward and they are writing copious

notes as the kids are talking. There is nothing more authentic than seeing

a teacher doing that. (Administrator)

These comments suggest that the group process helped to create a certain level of

ownership and engagement with the process and the information they received from the

students. Additionally, in reflecting on the team stories mentioned above, each group

took the work to a new level by taking ownership in a certain aspect of the process. In

Social Studies Team Story 1, the group took it upon themselves to change the way in

which students were selected to participate in the focus groups. This group along with

the team reflected in the Math/English Team Story, brought students back after the initial

meeting to look at sample lessons to receive feedback. In Social Studies Team Story 2,

the group realized that they missed the mark on the concept. Rather than just proceeding

ahead with their preconceived notions, they made a difficult adjustment and focused on a

53

new area of student need. Each of these groups went above and beyond their original

obligations of the project to make the process work for them and their students.

Results

One of the major themes to emerge as a result of this work centers on the notion

of empowerment. This idea refers to the transference of power from one individual or

group to another individual or group. In this case, the group that felt an increase in their

power was the students involved in the WOW Academies. However, just as the teachers

experiences some reluctance at the beginning, so too did the students when they realized

that they were going to be questioned by adults in small groups. At first they appeared

nervous and hesitant to immediately volunteer information. Once the WOW Academy

focus groups got underway, those fears appeared to quickly subside as students

responded to the teacher questions. During the interview focus groups, each student

indicated that if given the opportunity, they would participate again in the process. They

also felt as though they could share information even though their teachers were in the

room. Adults also commented that for the most part, the students were able to relax and

provide important information.

As the focus groups got started things were a little rough. I think the

smarter kids tended to dominate but as kids got familiar with the fact that

this was something they were going to participate in and as they got more

comfortable with the process and as the process got polished that is the

nice thing in seeing that struggling group feel comfortable enough to

speak out and explain why they are struggling. (Social Studies Teacher)

One thing I have noticed is that the kids are taking this very seriously and

they are not acting as we might fear. It is not a threatening thing to us as

teachers or adults. They seem really valued at being asked.

(Administrator)

54

All of our questions became personal. Most of the kids in our group had

two or three of us as their teachers going back to junior high. So they

were making a personal connection and relating the work to the teacher. It

was informative once we pushed them a little bit. (English Teacher)

Observational notes indicate that as students participated more in the focus groups that

their body language changed as well as their confidence in speaking to the adults. Their

responses to the interviews demonstrated that they felt this power because of the way the

adults treated them in process.

We all made contributions and voiced our opinions and you could tell that

the teachers were paying attention to what we were saying because just as

we were taking notes before, they were doing the same thing as we were

talking. And so it felt good and went both ways because they were paying

attention and we were paying attention to them. (11th Grade Student)

The teachers kept looking to us for feedback. The kept asking more

questions and said that what we were saying was really important. They

took a lot of notes. (10th Grade Student)

This shift also left an impression on the teachers as they noticed this shift in confidence

as things progressed.

The kids really do take this seriously. They come up with some thought

provoking responses to the questions. (English Teacher)

This empowers the student because they have some input and they care

and they know that the teachers care about what they say. (Math Teacher)

I hoped it would fill in some of my blind spots as far as what students are

actually thinking about, what’s on their radar, what they need in order to

be not just engaged but to be prepared; what their skill levels are and what

55

skill they see as needing. Because sometimes I see student and I have

assumptions as to what they might need or what level they might be at but

I need to listen to them. This gives us a space to do that to really focus, sit

down, and ask them questions. And I’ve noticed that the kids themselves

will be much more serious when invited into this sort of setting. (English

Teacher)

In addition, the students exhibited pride in their school and wanted their teachers to

succeed in the classroom. They noted that this process would be beneficial not just for

themselves but for their friends as well.

I like the idea of being able to help teachers understand students better

because that is going to help the learning environment. (12th Grade

Student)

Since this is helping people learn, why wouldn’t I want to do this? I want

to help people. (11th Grade Student)

No bad can really come from this. It is one of those things that will help

either way. It will help the class, the individual student, the teacher. It is

just going to help. (12th Grade Student)

I don’t know if this really helped me in the classroom. But I think that

what we did will help others. They [teachers] took the time to get these

groups together so it makes me think that it will help someone. (10th

Grade Student)

Some of their [students] input was not only about themselves but about

some of their colleagues as well. Some of their comments were about how

some kids don’t care about things for this or that reason and giving

perspectives other than just about themselves. (Math Teacher)

56

As far as linking the use of student voice to student achievement, little empirical

evidence exists at this time. Both teachers and students had difficulty in answering

questions related to this topic. To a small degree, they were able to articulate some

noticeable changes in their classrooms. One student indicated that the means by which

homework reminders were being delivered by the teacher were adjusted because of the

WOW Academy focus group interaction. Another mentioned that he noticed an increase

in the help that he and others in the room were receiving by the teacher due once again to

the WOW Academy focus group work.

I could notice a difference. Sometimes like one kid won’t get enough help

and I noticed that my teacher, especially [specific teacher] will go around

the class more and help people. This helps because sometimes is gets

complicated. (11th Grade Student)

In a few cases, teachers were also able to make a direct link between the activities in the

focus groups and changes in the classroom.

I assumed that kids knew the writing process going into this. I found that

re-teaching that process was very valuable. One of the things that we

developed was the exact steps to go through for the writing process. To

give them these steps really made a difference in the effectiveness of their

writing. When you walk in my room you used to see pictures of

computers and cameras and al that stuff. But now after this you see the

writing process in big signs on the wall. I have seen big improvement on

their projects. (CTE Teacher)

One group in particular focused their WOW Academy on a student project that had been

in place for several years. Through the focus group meeting, they understood why

students were having trouble understanding parts of the project related to critical

thinking. From there they made adjustments and brought the new and improved project

57

back to the classroom for student feedback. From that additional student voice feedback,

they made further adjustments on the project.

We have already changed and adjusted again because after we shared it in

our group we took it back and did a trial run right away with some of my

students and they made more recommendations. For me, that added more

valuable information to what I wanted to do with the assignment. (CTE

Teacher)

Overall, while there is some evidence that this work has reached the classroom level,

observational notes and interview records are limited which would indicate that

additional study needs to be done in this area.

58

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, ESSENTIAL LEARNINGS, AND THE FUTURE OF STUDENT VOICE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Conclusions

As stated earlier in chapter 2, the overall goal of this project is to help determine

the future use of student voice activities as a means of increasing student engagement and

achievement in the Cascade Valley School District. In order to arrive at this future,

conclusions must be drawn from the study in order to make recommendation to the

system leaders of the district. To assist with these conclusions, we must answer the

subquestions generated earlier. When answering these questions, we must use the lenses

of equity and communities of practice in order to arrive at the necessary conclusions

about student voice in the lesson design process.

Subquestion 1. If one of the goals of this study is to influence teacher practice,

how does this process contribute to their professional and social needs resulting in a

greater investment in their roles as designers of engaging work for students? By itself,

the WOW Academies with the C4D protocol as the structure, provides a solid framework

for influencing teacher practice around the lesson design process. The major focus is on

gaining a firm understanding of why certain concepts are harder for students to learn. By

adding the use of focus groups to the equation, teachers gain a greater perspective of how

students think and learn helping to eliminate the “blind spots” that teachers commonly

have.

One of the big values of these focus groups is that we get a better

understanding of our student audience in terms of their background and

knowledge. I know that this information will give me an advantage into

developing classroom experiences that they will enjoy and learn from.

(CTE Teacher)

In addition to the overall structure of the process, the means by which the teachers come

to the table to take part in the conversation also plays a tremendous role in influencing

their practice. Putting it in terms related to the communities of practice theory, their

participation is based upon mutual interests. It was evident in the observations and

59

interviews that they respected each other as colleagues and placed value on one another’s

opinions. It is for this reason that teams came together in the first place. There was

already a degree of professional and social admiration in place which helped the process

to move forward in a smooth fashion from the start. With this working relationship in

place, the teams could then negotiate meaning when presented with the data as well as the

reification process where they used the data to design an end product for the classroom.

While the working relationships helped to fill the professional and social needs of

the teachers, the data in the study would suggest not everything went easy for the groups.

In fact, each team that participated in the pilot project experienced some difficulty

whether it came from the initial fears and uncertainty of the process, the questioning

strategies, the student group make-up, or the analysis and sense making of the data.

Through the observations and interviews, it became clear that the teachers found this

work to be quite difficult. Perhaps this is due to the fact that this challenged the

traditional roles that exist between the student and teacher. Consider for a moment the

typical classroom exchange patterns where, “Teachers ask, and students answer. The

content of a student’s answer is not judged on its intrinsic merit, but on its conformity to

a prespecified idea” (Gamoran & Nystrand, 1992, p. 43). Instead, the art of developing

questions for focus groups aimed at lesson design mimics a conversation that can

“promote engagement by incorporating students’ contributions into the academic

content” (Gamoran & Nystrand, p. 45). In a way, the challenge for the teacher is that this

moves them out of their comfort zone and pushes them to question their own methods

and strategies in the classroom.

One of the challenges is to be humble enough to realize that what I am

doing is not working and I need to do it differently. I’ve got a Masters

degree in education but I think I have learned more about teaching from

working with my students. (CTE Teacher)

Even with these challenges, each group persevered with the work and pushed through the

issues toward an end product. In the final interviews, each teacher indicated that they

would do this work again – in fact several did (see Social Studies Team Stories 1 and 2).

60

For the groups to respond in this way, suggests that they have some investment in the

process. In a sense, these people are similar to the way Schlechty (2001) described

students in the educational process; as indentured volunteers. Their attendance at work is

mandatory, but their participation in the WOW Academies is by choice. This would

suggest a certain level of engagement on their part that has developed as a part of this

work.

Subquestion 2. If the overall goal of this study is to increase student achievement,

how does this process contribute to satisfying their academic and social needs, resulting

in a greater investment in their educational setting? In answering this question it is

important to note that from the beginning of the C4D process, the entire philosophy is to

address the needs of students that are struggling with concepts within the curriculum

presented in the classroom. For the most part, these are the students that rarely have a

voice in the academic setting. They may have roles in other settings in the school such as

in extra-curricular activities, but the classroom can be closed to their individual needs

related to academics and socialization. With the addition of the student focus groups, a

component is provided which allows students to have a voice in the process. For a brief

portion of their day, these students had an opportunity to have the undivided attention of

five to seven adults who were truly interested in what they had to say. How do we know

this? Each student indicated in the interview process that the teachers conducting the

WOW Academy focus groups showed interest in them as students. They took notes,

nodded their heads in approval when the students made good points, and thanked them at

the end for their input. And what did they have to say to the teachers? The observational

notes indicate that they were able to share their stories of what worked and didn’t work in

the classroom for them over the years. They could share their frustrations and the

emotional toll that certain activities played on their self-esteem and confidence. The end

result is that for the duration of the focus group, the traditional power structure that has

existed for years with the teacher in a dominant role over students shifts to where

students enter the room on more of an equal basis with the teachers. In addition, that

feeling of empowerment only increases as students begin to understand that the

information they give to the teachers will result in lessons designed for them and their

61

fellow classmates. Just as the teachers make the transition into investment of the process

through their participation, so too do the students through this shift of power.

With this shift in the power structure and the focus on the concepts that

students find difficult to learn, the potential is there to meet the equity

dimensions defined earlier in chapter 2. As the C4D protocol pushes

teachers toward designing lessons once they have gained a greater

perspective on their students through the focus group setting, then no

matter the resources of the family or community, students have an

opportunity to participate and reap the benefits of this academic work. In

addition, the plans and practices (curriculum) of the educational system

change as the adults listen to the diverse social needs of their customers, or

students. Finally, with the emphasis on hard to teach and learn concept,

this keeps the expectations of the school high since these concepts as well

as the outcomes defined by the state or district remain the same for all

students. The only difference is the means by which the students are

taught to grasp those concepts. That is influenced by the emphasis on the

student voice as a part of the protocol. If this project can have that desired

effect, then the educational system could take an important step toward

creating an equitable environment that meets the academic and social

needs of its’ students.

Therefore, as a result of the answers to the subquestions above, the following

conclusions can be drawn around this study:

Conclusion 1. The incorporation of student voice activities into the C4D protocol

increases the engagement levels of the participants in the lesson design process. While

this study did not attempt to measure engagement levels in the participants in a

quantitative manner, the qualitative methods of observations and interviews did provide

evidence that the student voice activities were engaging to the participants. And, since

the overall focus of the WOW Academies was ultimately geared toward lesson design, an

argument can be made that the engagement levels experienced in the student voice

62

activities transfer to the lesson design as well. For the teachers and students involved in

the process, the evidence of this engagement comes through observed behaviors that they

exhibited throughout the project. These included the high levels of interest displayed by

teachers and staff during the questioning phase of the focus groups, the ways in which

teachers listened to and recorded student responses to these questions, the data analysis

where the teams discussed the student responses in relationship to the hard to teach and

learn concepts, the means by which the teams worked through the difficult issues that

cropped up during their time together, and the constant reference the teams made to

students’ responses during the lesson design phase of the protocol. In addition to the

observed behaviors, their multitude of responses in the interview focus groups during the

project also indicated a level of engagement with the process. Overall, the responses and

behaviors by both groups appear to meet Newmann’s (1992) “psychological investment”

definition of engagement.

Conclusion 2. The incorporation of student voice activities into the C4D protocol

increases the perspectives of the participants around the roles that they play in relation to

others in the educational system. The work completed as a part of the pilot project

challenged the traditional roles for teachers and students that have existed for decades.

These are similar to what Freire (1970) described as “banking education” where teachers

make deposits of information which students are to receive, memorize, and repeat. Once

again, it was quite evident through the observations and interview responses that the

teachers were no longer making “deposits” while students sat passively. Instead, teachers

used the process to listen to students’ experiences in the classroom and gained

perspective on how education does or does not meet their needs. Likewise, the students

had the opportunity to see the effort being put forth by the teachers into the lesson design

process. In this setting, each side becomes the learner and instead of the perpetuating the

“banking” model, a new model emerges that hinges on dialogue and mutual

understanding.

Conclusion 3. Given the limitations of the study with regard to the time

boundaries, it is too early to tell if the student voice activities incorporated within the

63

C4D protocol increase overall student achievement. As discussed in chapter 4 regarding

the results that emerged as a part of the data collection, evidence is limited as far as the

work in this project leading to an increase in student achievement in the classroom. Both

teachers and students found this to be a difficult area to discuss and the observational

notes were brief in this area. With that said, the literature supports the notion that an

increase in student engagement will bring an overall increase in achievement. More

specifically, since this project emphasizes hard to teach and learn concepts that have been

identified by the students and the teachers, then it would be appropriate to suggest that

the lessons generated using student voice have the potential to raise the achievement

levels of students around those concepts. Considering that this process has already

demonstrated the ability to engage students as well as teachers, there is validity in the

argument that the student voice activities as a part of this pilot project have a strong

potential to raise achievement levels.

Implications

While the conclusions mentioned above are specific to Cascade Valley High

School and the student voice pilot project, the work completed as a part of this study has

some potential implications for other areas in the educational realm.

Implication 1. The work done as a part of the pilot project has the potential to

transfer to the younger grade levels throughout the Cascade Valley School system. Since

teachers all across the Cascade Valley School District are familiar with WOW Academies

and the C4D protocol, it would be possible to expand the use of the student voice

activities beyond the high school into the younger grade levels. However, what is

deemed appropriate and necessary as far as outcomes for the students in one school, may

not be the same for another. Therefore, school leaders must decide what outcomes they

wish for students as a result of the student voice activities. Mitra (2004) identified three

developmental assets that students can attain as well as the ways in which student voice

works to increase these assets (see Table 2). These assets include:

1. Agency. Acting or exerting influence and power in a given situation.

64

2. Belonging. Developing meaningful relationships with other students and

adults and having a role at the school.

3. Competence. Developing new abilities and being appreciated for one's

talents.

Therefore, school leaders wishing to build students’ sense of belonging would use the

appropriate student voice activities that would build that asset for students.

Table 2. Youth Outcomes

Youth Development Asset Ways That Student Voice Increases This Asset

Agency * Increasing ability to articulate opinions to others

* Constructing new identities as change makers

* Developing a greater sense of leadership

Belonging * Developing a relationship with a caring adult

* Improving interactions with teachers

* Increasing attachment to the school

Competence * Critiquing their environment

* Developing problem solving and facilitation skills

* Getting along with others

* Speaking publicly

Ultimately, if other schools in the system began to use student voice in order to build

student assets, then the system should see a change in how students view school and their

role in a true learning organization.

65

What is going to be interesting is to watch kids come through the system

and they are more self aware and more comfortable talking this language

with teachers and what kinds of opportunities are we going to be creating

to incorporate them more. They are going to be much more active

consumers in their education. (Administrator)

Implication 2. The work done as a part of the pilot project has the potential to

transfer to other schools in the Standard Bearer Network. Just as other schools in the

system have the potential to tap into the student voice via the WOW Academies and C4D

protocol, so too do the schools that are a part of the Standard Bearer Network. Many of

those schools currently use the C4D protocol in some fashion or another and adding this

step could be a realistic venture. Again, system leaders in other districts need to evaluate

the assets they wish to build in their students as well as the possible outcomes they want

to see happen. Such an undertaking would require an examination of the resources that

must be committed to making student voice activities a reality.

Implication 3. The lessons learned as a part of the pilot project have the potential

to change how teachers approach future lesson design. Since the student voice activities

in this study have contributed to satisfying many of the professional and social needs of

the teachers involved, this method of lesson design may prove to be enticing as a future

method for educators. The traditional lesson planning methods and means of

collaboration used for many years may be pushed aside with this new process in mind.

As teachers begin to see the results in the classroom as far a student achievement, they

may become convinced that utilizing student voice is a better course of action. This does

not necessarily mean that the C4D protocol must be employed to capture this voice.

Other means of collecting information may rise to the surface such as surveys and

classroom focus groups. Using this approach toward curriculum may also remove many

of the barriers that make teaching such an isolated venture. The collaborative nature of

the work could lead to more open communication not only in departments, but across

disciplines and grade levels.

66

Implication 4. The experiences gained by the participants in the study has the

potential to change the way they view their role in the school system. The Cascade

Valley School District’s partnership with the Schlechty Center for School Reform has

provided opportunities for conversation around the roles that people fill within a true

learning organization (see Appendix A). In summary, the roles comprise the following:

1. Student as volunteer.

2. Teacher as leader and designer.

3. Principal as leader of leaders.

4. Superintendent as moral and intellectual leader and capacity builder.

5. School Board as community leaders and advocates for schools.

6. Parents as partner and member of the school community.

Over the years, the professional development activities inside the district have been

carried out with these roles in mind. However, none of the prior activities have the same

potential to solidify these roles with the members of the community as does the student

voice within the C4D protocol. This is because the participants, mainly the students and

teachers, actually live and practice these roles as a part of the process. Furthermore,

because the participants experience success in terms of increased engagement, they are

more likely to accept these roles for themselves and others in the organization. As others

see this success, such as parents and school board members, they will also come to accept

these roles and become partners with the schools.

Essential Learnings

Over the course of the study, there have been several key learnings that have

emerged centered around student voice, and staff development. Probably the most

important area that came into view was not so much of a new learning as opposed to a

reminder about one of our core responsibilities in education. This has to do with equity

and the opportunities that we provide for all students in the system. Unfortunately our

schools do not appear to be structured in ways that encourage equitable leaning

opportunities for all. Too often the obstacles to equity are difficult to overcome leading

67

to acceptance on the part of educators, parents, and students themselves that equity can

never be achieved. However, with the student voice in the pilot project, equity is the

primary driver of this work. The simple act of giving kids that are disenfranchised in the

system a chance to speak about their experiences in school to adults is powerful. To have

adults listen and take corrective action in the classroom based upon the students’ message

goes even further. While this is just a starting point on the road to equitable learning, it is

a step in the right direction.

Another area of learning comes in the concept of communities of practice as a

model for staff development. A large part of the success surrounding the student voice

project has to do with this incentive-based means of getting staff working together toward

a common goal. In retrospect, had it been a mandate by system leaders to get teachers

together to participate in the C4D protocol, it would not have had the desired effects and

the observations and interview responses would have been much different. Instead,

teams formed because of a common belief system and thus their experiences in the

project lead to a more engaging outcome. As a policy tool, the communities of practice

model has some far reaching potential if the need is for groups to develop meaning

around their roles, relationships, and practices inside the learning organization.

One of the more interesting areas of new learning came in the form of student

voice and how to best elicit this voice. This appears to be a relatively new field of

research with a select number of authors writing on the subject. As a result, the literature

is fairly limited in terms of the studies that have been performed around student voice

activities. This made the pilot project a challenge to a certain degree because there was

no clear path to success. On the other hand, it made the process exciting because it

allowed for the creation of a new path with all sorts of challenges to tackle. One of these

challenges came in the form of the development of focus groups. In checking the

research, very little exists on the subject of schools using focus groups as a means of

improving student achievement. Most of the literature on focus groups comes from the

world of business where these are used quite heavily in product development. Even with

their use in this area, the literature is still limited when it comes to structuring and

running focus groups. It would appear that marketing firms have a fairly strong interest

68

in keeping that information hidden. An additional challenge came in the form

questioning strategies to be used as a part of the focus groups. In many ways, the

questioning done as part of this process is much different from the strategies that teachers

use on a daily basis in the classroom. So, along with the research into the development of

focus groups, learning had to take place around the questioning process so that teachers

could get informative data for the lesson design portion of the protocol.

The Future of Student Voice in the School District

Unless they [students] have some meaningful vote in the enterprise, most

educational change, indeed most education will fail. (Fullan, 2007)

The quote above from Fullan will essentially become the rally cry for the next

stages of student voice activities in the Cascade Valley School District. Given what has

been learned from the study, it would be irresponsible to ignore the conclusions and the

implication of this work especially as it plays a potential role in creating equity for all

students. Thus it becomes the responsibility of the system level leaders to take the next

steps in moving this work forward to the system level. Using the lessons learned in the

study, it will be possible to build the capacity for this work to flourish beyond the

confines of the high school.

One of the first steps will be for the system level leadership to begin

communicating the conclusions and potential implications that emerged as a part of the

pilot project. Starting in the fall of 2009, this communication must reach out to all

teachers in the district either through district and building retreats or district newsletters.

It is especially important for those that are interested in participating in WOW Academies

during the 2009-2010 school year to hear this message so they can begin to prepare

themselves for student participation. Following that communication, the C4D protocol

needs to be adjusted to include student voice activities for all teams that attend the WOW

Academies. On that same note, support needs to be provided on how all grade levels can

utilize student voice in the lesson design process. However, prior to this step, careful

69

consideration needs to be placed on some of the deficiencies that were recognized by the

participants in the study. Included in this would be questioning strategies and the means

by which students are selected to participate in the student voice activities.

Since one of the conclusions of the study noted that there was not enough data to

indicate that student achievement would improve as a result of student voice, this would

naturally be a next step in the learning process. At some point down the road, pre and

post assessment data would help to discover if the use of student voice is indeed having

an impact on student achievement. It would also allow for system leaders to make

adjustments to the process where necessary in order to meet this goal.

As these changes begin to take place inside the district and more schools begin to

utilize the student voice activities, it becomes the responsibility of the system level

leadership to once again communicate the goals and intentions of the project. However

this time the communication needs to go forth to the greater community so that they are

aware of how their students’ input is being used to improve the educational opportunities

for all. As a learning organization, the strength of this message only helps the people

within that system to clarify and understand their roles so that there is support for all

students.

70

LIST OF REFERENCES

Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and the imperative of including student voices, student interests, and students’ lives in the mainstream. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 369-379.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.

Barton, P. E. (2004). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Campbell, T. (2009). Listening to students: The missing component in school reform. Curriculum in Context, 36(1), 18-21.

Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 25-46). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.

Education World (2008). Curriculum: National and state standards Retrieved August 31, 2008, from http://www.education-world.com/standards/

Fielding, M. (2001). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new constraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling? FORUM, 43(2), 100-109.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

71

Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. A. (2006). Engagement vs. disaffection as central constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA.

Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1992). Taking students seriously. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American schools (pp. 40-61). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Kahle, J. B. (2004). Reaching equity in systemic reform: How do we assess progress and problems? Research Monograph. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.

Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Kohn, A. (2000). Unlearning how we learn. Principal (Reston, VA), 79(4), 26-29, 31-32.

Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), 155-172.

McCammon, S. (2008). Measuring what matters in Fife School District: A transformational change toward engaging every student. Fife, WA: Fife School District.

Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 289-304.

Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing 'student voice' in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651-688.

Mitra, D. (2006). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership. The Prevention Researcher, 13(1), 7-10.

Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727-744). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 34-36.

72

Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Oldfather, P. (1995). Songs ‘Come back most to them’: Students' experiences as researchers. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 131-137.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Engagement is the answer. Education Week, 27(43), 30-31.

Schlechty Center (2008). Core beliefs. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.schlechtycenter.org

Schlechty Center (2009, March 8-11). Images of School Chart. Paper presented at the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform, Albuquerque, NM.

Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 109-132.

Smyth, J. (2006). Educational leadership that fosters ‘student voice’. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 279-284.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2006). Voices of students on engagement: A Report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.

73

APPENDIX A. IMAGES OF SCHOOL CHART

Fro

m th

e S

chle

chty

Cen

ter

for

Lea

ders

hip

in S

choo

l Ref

orm

, Alb

uque

rque

, NM

, 200

9.

Cop

yrig

ht 2

009

by th

e S

chle

chty

Cen

ter.

Rep

rint

ed w

ith

perm

issi

on f

rom

the

auth

or.

74

APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS – ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONS

1. Tell me who you are, your role, and how long you have been in the district. 2. How was the decision made to incorporate the use of student focus groups in the

lesson design process used by the district? 3. Think back to the types of questions asked of the students in the focus groups.

What types of questions seemed to solicit thoughtful responses on the part of students?

4. Can you think of specific examples where the student feedback you heard in focus

groups resulted in specific changes in lesson design and delivery? If so, please describe those.

5. To what extent did student contributions in the focus groups shape your thinking

about the value of student voice in the lesson design process? 6. What specific student contributions, if any, do you recall as being most important in

shaping your thinking about the value of student voice in the lesson design process? 7. To what extent do you feel students benefited from having teachers question them

about the design of lessons? 8. Thinking back to the teacher conversations that occurred before, during, and after

the student focus groups, how do you think teachers responded to having students discuss classroom curricular issues?

9. If the use of student focus groups becomes a regular part of WOW Academies in

the future, what changes would you like to see as a result of your experiences this year?

10. Is there anything that I didn't ask or is there any additional information regarding

student focus groups and lesson design that you would like to add?

75

APPENDIX C. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS – TEACHER QUESTIONS

1. Tell me who you are, your role, and how long you have been in the district.

2. How did you learn about the use of student focus groups as a part of designing

lessons? 3. Think back to when you first agreed to become involved in the use of student focus

groups. What were you hoping this process would accomplish? 4. Think back to when your team created questions for the student focus group. What

process did you use to create the questions and how do you feel they targeted the type of information you were seeking from the students?

5. To what extent did student contributions in the focus groups shape your thinking

about how to improve your focused lesson? 6. What specific student contributions, if any, do you recall as being most important for

shaping the decisions you made about the lesson? 7. If the district were to make student focus groups a standard part of WOW Academies

in the future, what advice would you give to teacher colleagues or administrators about moving forward with this plan?

8. Is there anything that I didn't ask or is there any additional information regarding

student focus groups and lesson design that you would like to add?

76

APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS – STUDENT QUESTIONS

1. Tell me your name, your grade level, and how long you have been a student in the

district. 2. How did you first learn about being involved in a focus group with your teachers?

3. How did you feel about being asked to participate in a focus group?

4. What do you think the teachers were trying to accomplish by including students’

viewpoints through the use of focus groups?

5. Go back to when you participated in the focus group. Can you think of a specific contribution that you or one of the other students made that helped the teachers with their work?

6. How interested do you think your teachers were in what you had to say in the

focus group? How do you know this?

7. After the focus group, did anything happen in one or more of your classes that you think is related to the conversation you had with your teachers? If so, what?

8. If your teachers were to make focus groups a regular part of their routine, what

advice would you give on how to use them in the future?

9. If asked to participate in a future focus group, would you do it? Why or why not?

10. Do you have any other comments about your experience with the focus group that you would like to add?

77

APPENDIX E. PARENT PERMISSION LETTER

April 10, 2009 Dear Parents: During the course of this school year, your child participated in a focus group during the school day that helped teachers design engaging lessons around hard to teach concepts. This is part of the ongoing work at Cascade Valley High School and the Cascade Valley School District where teachers are using focus groups in order to understand our students better as learners as well as solicit their feedback on the work that is presented to them in the classroom. The end result is that we hope to improve our ability to instruct students on difficult material so that interest and achievement levels increase. On April 22, 2009, your child will have another opportunity to participate in a focus group that will study their experiences related to their previous work with our staff. The purpose of this group will be to help the school and the district determine the next steps related to this work. Since the focus and potential outcome of this group will be different, we are seeking approval for your child to participate. As you consider this request, please know the following:

Their participation is strictly voluntary. There is no impact to grades or status in the school or classroom. The focus group may be videotaped for later review and use by the Cascade Valley School

District. The focus group will be facilitated by an independent researcher hired by the district. The information presented by your child may be used in a doctoral research study through the

University of Washington. All information relating to your child in this study will remain strictly anonymous and confidential.

We have sincerely appreciated your child’s help in this process to date and we hope that they will continue to participate and provide us with quality information that will help our school and district move forward. If you wish to have your child participate, please sign and date the bottom portion of this letter and have them return it to the school. If you have questions or concerns related to this work, please feel free to call me (253) 517-1100. Sincerely,

Mark Knight Principal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I give my permission for _____________________________________________ to participate in the focus group session on April 22, 2009. ______________________________________________ _________________________________ Parent Signature Date

78

APPENDIX F. TEACHER PARTICIPATION E-MAIL

Dear Group: Bear with me – this is a long e-mail with quite a bit of information. At some point during the year, each of you took the opportunity to participate in either a district or in-building WOW Academy in which student focus groups were a part of the design process. As a follow-up to this work, I would like to set-up a series of teacher focus groups that will help inform the future use of student voice in lesson design. Your participation will help in three ways:

1) It will provide data for our building as we move forward in our work around student voice, diversity, and hard to teach concepts

2) It will give the district information as to how to design future WOW Academies 3) It will provide me with data for use in my doctoral dissertation (I am conducting

action research around the use of student voice in lesson design in the Cascade Valley School District)

Please know that your participation in this exercise is optional. It has no bearing on your employment, evaluation, or future teaching schedule. If you decide to participate, here is how it will work:

1) The date for the focus group sessions will be Wednesday, April 1 (yes this is a Standard Bearer Early Release Day)

2) The focus group sessions will occur in the morning 3) There will be three groups/sessions:

a. Group 1 – 7:45 – 8:45 b. Group 2 – 9:00 – 10:00 c. Group 3 – 10:15 – 11:15

4) I will assign you to a group (if you have a preference on a particular time I can try to accommodate your needs)

5) I will provide coverage for you during your assigned time 6) Each session will occur in the Counseling Center conference room 7) A facilitator from outside the district will be conducting the questioning 8) Each focus group will be videotaped in order to be transcribed at a later date (I

will gather your permission prior to using any quotes in my dissertation) 9) The video clips from the focus groups may be streamed for use on a future district

website on student voice (again with your permission) Once again, your participation will provide the district and school information as to how student voice will be utilized in the future. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know one way or another if you are interested. Also, don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Thanks, Mark

79

VITA

Mark Edward Knight was born on October 1, 1966 in Portland, Oregon and has lived his entire life in the Pacific Northwest. He achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1988 and secondary teaching certificate in 1989 from the University of Washington. He later went on and earned his Master of Education degree with an emphasis in Curriculum and Instruction from Western Washington University in 1993. In 1999 he returned to the University of Washington to earn his Principal’s Certification. His professional career has included 10 years of high school teaching in the areas of social studies, English, and leadership. It has also included another 10 years of high school administration in both large and small suburban school districts. He currently serves as a principal at the high school level. Mark resides in Puyallup, Washington with his wife Kim, and children Andrew, Rachel, and Melissa.