Abstract
This case study seeks to analyse the role of voice of students in the development of their behaviour. It also looks at various issues that have been raised on the levels of studentsâ participation in academic issues and the views held on the issue of studentsâ consultations and participation in the implementation of change in educational institutions.
The aim of this case study is to show how ideas put forward by Foucault have helped shape behaviour of students in educational institutions in relation to their participation in educational matters.
Introduction
In the process of promotion of self-learning by students, the inclusion of their input and voices is of immense importance since it has the ability to empower them and to give them new experiences in learning. The level of student consultation and participation has been on the increase in almost all levels of education in the United Kingdom.
More and more students have a say on the school administration on various matters that affect their academic life. This has witnessed behavioral change in institutions of learning. Although this has been the case, very few seem to agree on the meaning of this new desire to give students an opportunity to air their opinions on various matters in the academic circle.
Numerous works done in this field by many contributors either seek to champion this cause or provide guidelines for effective studentsâ participation and consultation.
Foucault Theory
Foucault, in his theory explains power as a confrontation that involves two adversaries. He sees power as linking this adversaryâs together rather the question on government. In his theory, government not only includes political structures but also the way groups or individualsâ conduct could be directed.
Therefore, governmentality involves the effort to restructure human faculty or systems in order to function in a given manner. Due to this, the process of government would not be realized through struggle or linking the parties together, but in a mode of action that falls in between.
According to Foucault, power can only be exercised when subjects are free. Therefore to him slavery cannot be an exercise of power. Foucault theory presents a model that explains how oppression can be fought. The theory can be used to give an explanation of how institutions of education can employ concepts of the theory to shape behavior of students especially in regard to their participation in educational matters.
Studentsâ Participation
According to Potter (2011), students can be grouped into four different categories that constitute their voice in adult education. The conceptual framework for students’ participation proposed by Potter proposes a level of studentsâ agency as one that is increasing.
In the first view in this framework, the students are assumed to be sources of data and their assessment is based on the normative targets. In the second approach, students are assumed to be active in response to various questions where teachers are assumed to be able to listen to them with the view of responding to their analysis whenever they have the right and the freedom to raise their voices on various issues.
The third approach by Potter takes students as partners in research with an expanded role of education especially in the decision making process where teachers are also included. In the fourth level, the framework takes students as researchers of their own.
To add to the views of Potter, Sellar and Gale (2011), talk about the emergence of studentsâ voice in the recent past. The two talk about student participation and identity and view this as having risen from the struggle for equality and the need for recognition politically.
The voice of students is taken as a part of a project that seeks to emancipate students. This is done with the hope of bringing transformation not only to the individual students, but also to the educational institution, which are viewed as being oppressive to students, and also to bring transformation to the society as a whole.
Sellar and Gale on their part propose that studentsâ equity should be based on capacities such as voice, aspirations and mobility rather than on barriers that at present arise before them.
According to them, strengthened capacities help in developing networks (mobility), give shape to the future (aspirations) and also share the experiences gained or earned (the voice). This increases the peopleâs ability to have access to the benefits of social institutions and economic goods together with the transformation of these institutions.
Five principles that govern the voice of students have been proposed by Sellar and Gale. According to them, resource is an important component required by students. This is considered to be of significant importance since it determines the value attached to this voice and the recognition it gets from others.
They also suggest that voice requires participation of others in order to enable the exchange and narrations with them. The third principle according to Sellar and Gale involves the role of voice in relation to histories. According to the two, it is the voice that speaks for the embodied history of the society as a whole.
They also acknowledge in their fourth principle that the life of the society is composed of multiple narratives rather than just a single narrative. For the voice equality to exist, social relations must play a pivotal role. The voice, according to their last principle is denied in cases where the society is organised in a manner that give privileges to some voices while others are ignored.
In their contribution to the debate on learnersâ participation, Rudd, Colligan and Naik (2006) proposed four main approaches that could be used by institutions of educational institutions such as schools and colleges, to enhance studentsâ activities in relations to their voices on various issues.
To them, the first step should be to identify the existing position of these institutions in the development of the voice of the students. Accordingly, the institutions should identify whether or not enough efforts are put in place to enhance the studentsâ voice.
Accordingly, effort should be put in place to ensure effective participation in situations where this is not available. This will be achievable if the institution is ready to listen to the voice of the students.
They also suggest the need to know the recognised voice in situations where there is a barrier to student participation in raising their views. In such situations, it is considered crucial to know the position of the institution in the development of the voice of the students.
The main question here should revolve around the issue of acceptance of an institution to give students freedom to air their views on various issues surrounding their academic lives.
The third question according to the three should be on the methods that these institutions use to approach the concept of studentsâ participation and in particular in airing their voices on various matters. The question should also address the tools that are employed by educational institutions to help students to air the voices.
However, Rudd, Colligan and Naik agree that not all areas should be opened for student participation and consultations. Therefore, they suggest that learning institutions should decide on the issues and areas where the concept of students’ participation should be employed.
To them, the students’ voice can be experienced in a number of levels. The first level is considered non-participatory in which case the actions of students are directed rather than being informed. At this level, students play a role indirectly in decision making without knowledge of their right to participate.
It also involves situations where students get information on changes without their involvements on the matter or without their input to the decisions reached. The three main types of participation here include manipulation, decoration and informing.
With just little acceptance of studentsâ participation in a more direct manner, the second level of participation consists of consultations, placation and partnership. At this level, students get full information on the intended decisions by the institution management which also encourages input from students although no consideration is made to their contributions.
The level is also characterised by the institution’s efforts to inform students about, the intended changes, invite their views and listen to them, but guarantee is never granted that their views will be considered in the final output.
However, in some cases, consultations are done between institutions and the learners in which case students receive information on the intended changes from the management. Students’ views in such situations are taken into consideration which results into decisions that include students input together with that of the staff working in the institution.
The last level according to Rudd, Colligan and Naik empower students to take leading roles on various issues. In this case, the roles of students on matters affecting their academic lives are exclusively played by them. The institution’s management plays the role of support where there is a need for that.
The students are also empowered in this level to the extent that they can initiate projects, manage various issues, delegate work to fellow students and also give shape to the way education should be approached. Here, the main type of participation includes the power to delegate and the students’ control.
Various studies done on the subject have come up with a general conclusion of lack of awareness on the part of the students on the existence of their role in shaping organization procedures. Most believe that the nature of the market, which is quite competitive, does not allow consultations between students and the institutionsâ management to take place.
The situation is not different in those institutions that encourage participation. This is because, despite the contributions made by students in form of ideas on various issues, no implementation of their views is effected. This denies students the opportunity to develop fundamental disciplines in their lives and forced them to comply with the institution’s regulation or where this is intolerable, take the option of leaving.
However, the voice of the learner was considered indispensable in classrooms. According to Braggs (2007), students’ voice is never allowed to be unmediated, but rather, it is always guided, supervised and facilitated using various means that make sure there is a limit to what students can say and the way those who speak think about themselves.
Various studies done by students have confirmed that given an opportunity to air their views and to participate fully in various issues affecting the life of the society, they are able to offer valuable input.
This can be confirmed by various authorities in the society such as teachers and managers who were amazed by the level of quality of research done by students through their self-initiatives and without supervision by the management of the education institutions.
Although Bragg considers the role of voice of students to be of great importance on various issues, he agrees with those who hold views that there should be limits put in place by stakeholders in the education sector in order to control the influence the voice of students might have in their institutions.
One form of students’ voice considered to be of great importance in the process of normalisation of studentsâ behaviour is opinion line. Opinion line, a form of the voice of the students, has the ability to normalise attitude, behaviour and to ensure proper development of the young generation into respectable citizens of the country through various forms of punishments.
Student participation also helps them develop new ways of behaviour at school. Through the participation of students in various issues, they are considered to develop forms of responsibilities and obligations that initially were not part of them. As a result of this, students are able to manage the environment and themselves in a manner that can be considered prudent (Turner 2001).
They also behave in a manner that indicates that they understand the role they have to play in the future as students. This influences the outcome of their environment with particular interest on the outcome around the institutions of education.
Conclusion
As predicted by Foucault, formation of behaviour is influenced heavily by formal institutions in the sense that all formal institutions have some forms bureaucratic procedures to be adhered to. It is these procedures that make actors accustomed to certain forms of behavior in order to fit within the institutionâs behavioural context.
Reference List
Bragg, S. 2007. âStudent voiceâ and governmentality: The production of enterprising subjects?â Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education Vol. 28: No. 3, pp.343-358.
Potter, J. 2011. âLifelong learning in Europeâ, European Journal of Education. Vol. 3, pp.174-181.
Rudd, T., Colligan, F. & Naik, R. 2006. Learner voice: A handbook from Futurelab, Cengage, Connnecticut.
Sellar, S. & Gale, T. 2011. âMobility, aspiration, voice: A new structure of feeling for student equity in educationâ, Critical Studies in Education, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.115-134
Turner, B. 2001. Profiles in Contemporary Social Theory. Sage, New York.