Ruth Leitch, Laura Lundy, Peter Clough, Despina Galanouli and John Gardner

School of Education

Queen’s University Belfast

This paper will provide a theoretical and methodological update on this project which centres on pupil participation in assessment processes. CPAL, an extension on the Consulting Pupils about Teaching and Learning led by Jean Rudduck, is an eighteen month study which started in June 2005.

The project provides an additional theoretical perspective in its exploration of pupil rights specifically in relation to assessment issues presently on the policy agenda in the Northern Ireland context. An emergent model of pupil rights is being conceptualised and tested heuristically through the three interrelated studies (the pupil voice in Pupil Profiles at KS2; engaging pupils in Assessment for Learning at KS3; and Teacher Perspectives) that make up the overall design of the CPAL project. The presentation will outline how various methods are being considered and developed to meet the goals of the studies and to ensure pupil consultation in their development.

CPAL was designed around the twin aims of:

(i) focusing on pupil participation in assessment as an extension to the work on teaching and learning arising from the Phase 1 project on consulting pupils (Rudduck et al. 2003), and

(ii) considering the issue of pupil consultation through the lens of children’s rights.

CPAL comprises three independent but interrelated studies, each of which has a particular focus on pupil rights and pupil participation:

‘If we want to improve pupils’ achievements and commitment then we may need to take our agenda for change…from what they can tell us about teaching, learning and schooling.’ (McBeath et al, 2003: 1).

Within the Rudduck et al (op. cit.) project, pupil participation has been closely associated with the school improvement agenda. Pupil voice in this context is defined broadly as ‘coherent and negotiated engagement and consultation between teachers and school students with the aim of improving the learning experiences and outcomes of pupils’ (Kanefsky, 2001:1). To summarise, the pupil participation model deriving from Rudduck’s project indicates primarily enhanced commitment by students to their schooling, coupled with improved pupil self-esteem, which is sustained by transformation of teachers’ knowledge of pupils (greater awareness of pupils’ capacity for constructive analysis), transformation of pedagogic and organisational practices and transformation of teacher-pupil relationships (from passive or oppositional to more active and collaborative).

This large-scale, Phase 1 project has been prolific and visibly successful in drawing attention to the field of pupil voice across a broad range of educational issues but, in its final analysis, calls for consultation between teachers and pupils to move beyond organisational and housekeeping matters on to more substantial learning and teaching issues. Although immeasurably smaller in scope, and only of eighteen months’ duration, CPAL precisely takes up the challenge by focusing on such core educational business, and in particular, the importance of pupil participation in the assessment of learning – an area where there is, to date, relatively little research (Duffield et al., 2000).

CPAL provides added value in not only addressing a relatively under-researched area of pupil participation in assessment but also by considering pupil consultation in assessment within a Children’s Rights framework, arguing that ‘voice’ is necessary but not sufficient -‘voice is not enough’. The most relevant children’s rights provision is Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a right which is referred to often by policy makers and academics but which is rarely cited in its entirety. The full text of Article 12(1) reads as follows:

Article 12 is frequently referred to in the context of "the voice of the child", "pupil voice" or the right to "participate" or be "consulted". While these provide convenient shorthand which helps to avoid the use of Article 12’s long-winded and somewhat awkward construction, each has the potential to diminish its impact as they convey an imperfect summary of what it requires. In view of this, the CPAL team is employing a new model which has been designed as a user-friendly but legally sound framework for capturing the true extent of the UK’s obligations to children in terms of educational decision-making (Lundy, 2005). The model unpacks the twin dimensions of Article 12: (i) the right for children to express views and (ii) the right to have those views heard and given due weight. It provides a new means of communicating the legal and human rights imperative in Article 12 of the UNCRC by requiring consideration of four separate factors: Space, Voice, Audience and Influence. The model, which is intended to focus decision-makers on the distinct, albeit interrelated, elements of the provision, has been conceptualised as follows:

The four elements have a rational chronological order:

The model is intended to be used in three ways: (a) to inform understanding (b) to guide policy development and (c) to audit existing practice. Each of these will be ‘tested’ within the three studies that comprise the CPAL project. In addition, the framework will be used to inform the research design.

In recent years there have been several major reform initiatives in Northern Ireland which are aimed at offering children and young people an education which is relevant to their needs.

Study 1 specifically engages pupils views on the development of the Pupil Profile at Key stage 2

AfL, then, is described variously as a way of planning activities in lessons so that both the teacher and the pupils know what they are learning and how well they are learning it. It is characterised by teachers and pupils both being clear about the purpose of the learning and the expected outcomes. Teachers in AfL classrooms use such processes as effective feedback, clear learning intentions, quality questioning, dynamic group work and self- and peer-assessment, but is not embodied in any one of these.

As a result of these types of pupil-centred learning processes, AfL claims evidence for (i) Improved learning and standards and (ii) Improved self-esteem for pupils. What is of specific interest to CPAL is the identification of ways in which pupils are engaged with and participate in decisions in the learning and assessment processes in AfL classrooms through what is claimed for AfL in:

Study 2 consults pupils at Key Stage 3 on their experiences of learning in AfL classrooms and identifies characteristics of AfL classrooms supporting or inhibiting pupil participation.

Although AfL ideology has pupil participation at its heart, there is the question of how it relates in practice to pupil rights. Study 2 aims to tease out the relative opportunities for pupils in AfL classrooms across the roles of: (i) Pupil consultation (ii) Pupil agency (iii) Pupils as agents of radical change.

The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) for Northern Ireland is currently co-ordinating, across the five education and library boards’ curriculum support services, a roll -out of pilot studies and consultation on the implementation of the APP, and, in parallel, training for the introduction of AfL. The latter is mostly focused on Primary schools with significantly fewer schools in Post-primary sector currently engaged in the cohort training for the introduction of AfL. As yet there has been no consultation with pupils about the introduction of Pupil Profiles or AfL.

Nevertheless, the effective introduction of Pupil Profiles and Assessment for Learning must involve teachers at the heart of the process to ensure constructive and effective delivery.

Underpinning study 3, then, is the desire to understand the link between teachers’ professional development and action and their personal orientations. Van den Berghe (2002: 583) suggests that the central question is, "How does educational change affect and build on the personal identity and emotions of those who are centrally involved?". For CPAL, this entails engagement with the question, ‘What is the perceived effect on teacher’s constructed sense of identity of being encouraged to incorporate more fully pupils’ thoughts, feelings and decisions into classroom practices centring on assessment?’

Cooper & Olson (1996) assert a fundamental problem for teacher identity in what they perceive as the tension between their personal knowledge of children (which includes their own personal histories and memories) and rationalist models determined by earlier experience and circumstance. How do teachers’ link their own models of children and their own perceptions of themselves as ‘former’ children into the emergent views associated with AfL? Zembylas’ (2001) research also shows how events and people can provoke intense emotions in teachers. It follows that teachers cannot be helped to develop classroom management skills, AfL pedagogy, nor indeed pupil consultation, for example, "without addressing their emotional responses to the events around them and the attitudes, values, and beliefs that underlie these responses" (Van den Berghe, 2002: 586)

Study 3 consults teachers at Key Stages 2 & 3 on two levels:

In addressing the issues relating to pupil participation in assessment, CPAL is designed as a qualitative, in-depth study in three parts. Each of the three studies (Pupil Profiles at KS2; Assessment for Learning at KS3 and Teachers’ Perspectives across KS 2 and 3) comprise a variety of relatively standard-fare, tried-and-tested, fit-for-purpose methods of inquiry to address the assorted research questions relating to each study. Thus, all three studies involve surveys of attitude, focus groups and interviews (variously for pupils, teachers, parents and others key in the process). In addition, Study 3 draws on aspects of, for example, the teacher questionnaire used in the ESRC/TLRP Learn2Learn project. Nevertheless, specific methodological challenges are being raised and resolved in the development of CPAL at this stage of its development, some of which we consider are worthy of sharing:

Children are the best informed people about their own lives ‘and so have an expert role in that respect’ (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998).

CPAL wishes to ensure that the research carried out is not on or for young people, but with them in line with the continuum exemplified by Griffiths (1998). This is an ethical issue and matter of principle.

Research which aims to appreciate children’s experiences within a Rights’ framework should be guided by similar considerations.

This has consequences at a number of levels for CPAL, some of which have practical consequences as yet to be resolved:

Advisory: Both studies 1 and 2 are seeking the most appropriate means to set up Young People’s Research Advisory Groups (YPRAG) that can contribute to the research agenda and also be a sounding board both for the introduction of particular methods as well as processes of engagement with other young people. Difficulties surrounding YPRAG concern issues of representation, inclusivity, capacity-building, workability and concerns about potential to appear patronising.

Co-researchers: CPAL wishes to involve children and young people in the research as far as possible, not just as a preliminary sounding board. Although the research aims are set by us adults, CPAL seeks to increase opportunities in the research process of studies 1 & 2 for pupils to be co-researchers (carrying out surveys, helping other children to produce data and assist in interpretation where feasible).

Inclusivity: Ensuring the views tapped are as inclusive as possible. This is in part being addressed by the careful selection of ‘case study’ schools across the spectrum in Northern Ireland but one must still be sensitive to the question of whose voice gets heard in ‘the acoustic of the school’ (Reay & Arnot, 2002). Additional efforts may be needed to locate and communicate with some children on the Pupil Profile eg those with specific learning difficulties.

Ensuring informed consent: Alongside school and parental consent, it goes without saying that CPAL wishes to be satisfied that informed consent of all children and young people participating is obtained. Careful explanation about the research and its implications (contributing to research which can be of value to other young people) is required to ensure choice is freely given. The challenge is to find succinct, interesting means to include the following, appropriate to age and maturity:

Additionally, special care needs to be taken to ensure that all children participating have understood the implications of the research and that refusal to take part and opting out (at any stage) are accepted by all parties and handled sensitively within the school or classroom context.

CPAL subscribes to the view that the understanding of children and their views on their experience of schooling requires a multiplicity of methodological approaches. Study 1 and 2 require methods that are likely to engage and are suited to the pupils’ levels of understanding, knowledge, interests and particular locations in the social world.

McBeath et al (2003) refer to the value and utility of image-based approaches when consulting pupils about their educational experiences. They suggest these means as part of the teacher’s toolkit in pupil consultation but do not themselves appear to adopt them for research purposes in their own studies. The methods suggested are some of potential creative and engaging data-capture methods which could be adapted for the purposes of consulting pupils in this study. Some of the methods referred to are:

CPAL will incorporate creative methods that engage and stimulate pupils in relation to the aims of the various studies. Creative methods shift the traditional balance from closed to open and draw on the inventive and imaginative processes such as the above to assist pupil participants to describe and analyse their experiences and give meaning to them. Creative methods also should help to develop some understanding about shared meanings regarding their place in the assessment processes.

Examples of creative enactive methods being designed are:

Study 1: the use of virtual pupil profile exemplars through a Virtual Research Environment (VRE) in classrooms that encourage children to interact with and comment on, or suggest potential aspects to enhance the profile;

Study 2: the use of simple impromptu drawings about their classroom experience in an AfL classroom (one that has been observed through the classroom observation);

Study 3: story/autobiographical storying stimulated in response to the pupil rights model.

In summary, a core challenge at this stage in its development is for CPAL to ensure that pupil consultation is enshrined and enacted as far as possible in the research design and process itself.

In addition, CPAL is being developed to contribute a supplementary theoretical perspective to the work already achieved on pupil voice in Phase 1 through its exploration of pupil rights, specifically in relation to assessment issues presently on the policy agenda in the Northern Ireland context. Development work is already underway to find appropriate methodological means to ‘test’ the emergent pupil rights’ framework within the three studies that comprise CPAL. Space, Voice, Audience and Influence (Lundy, op. cit.) will be explored through pupil consultation on Pupil Profiles, through classroom observation in AfL classrooms and in pupil’s, teachers’ and parents’ responses to their experience of increasing pupil participation and consultation in the assessment of their own learning.

Assessment Reform Group (2002) Testing, Motivation and Learning, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education.

Cooper, K. and Olson, M. (1996). The multiple ‘I’s’ of teacher identity. In M. Kompfe, D.Dworet & R. Boak (eds.) Changing research and practice (pp78-89). London: Falmer Press.

Department of Education (2005). New Admissions Arrangements for Post Primary Schools: Consultation Document. Bangor: Department of Education

Duffield, J., Allan, J., Turner, E., and Morris, B. (2000) . Pupils' Voices on Achievement: an alternative to the standards agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), pp263-274.

James, A. Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Griffiths, M. (1998) Educational research for social justice: getting off the fence, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Hill , M. (2005) Ethical Considerations in Researching Children’s Experiences. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (eds.) Researching Children’s Experience: Approaches and Methods. London: Sage publications.

Heeks, R. (1999) The Tyranny of Participation in Information Systems:

Learning from Development Projects. Working paper No 4. March 1999. http://www.man.ac.uk/idpm/idpm_dp.htm#devinf_wp  (accessed October 2005)

Kanefsky, J. (2001) Report on Workshop on the transformative potential of Pupil Voice, ESRC Teaching and Learning Research programme Conference proceedings, 2001, Birmingham.

Lundy, L. (2005) "Voice is not enough": reconceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,’ Paper presented at Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference, Liverpool, 31^st March 2005.

Reay, D. and Arnot, M. (2002) Social inclusion, gender, class and community in secondary schooling, paper given at the BERA annual conference, University of Exeter.

Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2000) Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: ‘carving a new order of experience’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30 (1) p80.

Rudduck, J., Arnot, D., Fielding, M., McIntyre, D. and Flutter J. (2003) Consulting Pupils about Teaching and Learning. Final report to the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm  (last accessed October 2005)

Van den Berghe R. (2002) Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, Winter, 2000, 72 (4) pp 577-825.

Veale, A. (2005) Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. In S. Greene & Hogan, D (eds.) Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods. London. Sage publications.

Zembylas, M. (2001) Interrogating ‘Teacher Identity’: Emotions, Resistance and Self–formation, Education Theory. Winter, 2003, 53 (1).