Acting Upon Student Voice-Based Teaching Assessment Initiatives: An Account of Participatory Action Research for Teacher Professional Learning

Abstract

Numerous nations implement Student Perception Surveys (SPS) in their schools to assess teaching for student learning improvement. However, research suggests no significant change in teachers’ practices following such student voice-based assessment initiatives, noting their struggle to act upon it. Utilizing the pyramid of student voice as a key framework, we investigate how a Participatory Action Research (PAR)-based professional development (PD) shapes a group of Australian secondary teachers’ interaction with SPS and professional learning. Analyses of the teachers’ interviews, research projects, and reflective notes about their use of SPS illustrate how the PAR-based PD informed their practice, specifically: (i) transforming ‘survey fatigue’ to increased student voice; (ii) contemplating personal, professional, and political entanglements; and (iii) (re)building teacher agency—employing SPS as collective learning tools of professional empowerment rather than accountability measures of teaching. Implications include pathways to strengthen teachers’ agency—honoring their professionalism—in assessment spaces increasingly shaped by student voices.

Introduction

Student voice is increasingly discussed in research, in everyday school practice, and in the context of teaching assessment (i.e., assessment of teaching)—acknowledging both its advantages and limitations in providing data on what happens in the classroom (e.g., Fauth et al., 2020). Indeed, Student Perception Surveys (SPS)—student voice-based teaching assessment initiatives—which could be seen as tools of teacher surveillance (Page, 2017) undermining the ethics of care (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2022), were also found to be valid and reliable teaching assessment tools (Wallace et al., 2016), prompting nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to implement them in their schools (GOV.UK Department of Education, 2018; Steinberg & Donaldson, 2016; VicDET, 2019a).

Being formative or summative in nature, SPS are based upon various measures encompassing different facets of teaching (e.g., teacher–student relationships, pedagogical effectiveness); intended to provide a well-rounded educational picture and alleviate some of the limitations associated with isolated teaching assessment procedures conducted by principals and peers. While the latter can offer rich feedback supported by validated feedback observation protocols (Danielson, 2013) to inform practice (Swinglehurst et al., 2008) and improve instruction (Visone, 2022), it can also lead to ethical predicaments which mitigate educational processes (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2016) and substantially differ from students’ impressions of teaching effectiveness (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008) and standardized outcomes (Harris et al., 2014). Therefore, studies suggest expanding the discussion on teaching assessment approaches for professional learning (Firestone & Donaldson, 2019), calling to include more students’ voices in the process (e.g., Mitra, 2018). However, this intricate voice-based assessment space becomes more contested with recent research suggesting no significant change in teachers’ practice following the use of SPS, highlighting their struggle to act upon the results (Finefter-Rosenbluh et al., 2021) and the need for a complementary professional development (PD).

This study acknowledges that a suitable PD could position teachers as researchers within their classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; O’Connell Rust, 2009; Van Katwijk et al., 2019). By providing teacher research opportunities, Lytle and Cochran-Smith (1992, p. 51) have long noted, “teachers [can] identify discrepancies between their theories of practice and their practices… their own practices and those of others ... and … their ongoing assumptions about what is goining on in their classrooms and their more distanced and retrospective interpretations.” Such research opportunities or Action Research (AR), and in particular Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a form of AR, involve recognizing the capacity of all people who are part of the situation under scrutiny to actively participate in the research process (Kemmis et al., 2014). PAR, in this regard, views teachers as researchers who can improve their and their students’ experiences by including the latter as co-researchers (Smit et al., 2020). In such processes, participants could be seen as democratic agents, assuming they have interdependent interests and equal stakes, and they are part of a social structure fulfilling political equality and binding conditions (Erman, 2013).

Nevertheless, it is unclear how a PAR-based PD corresponds with teachers’ professional learning to shape their interaction with SPS as student voice-based teaching assessment initiatives. In fact, there is a dearth of literature on PD designed to improve the use of SPS in schools. To address this critical gap, we draw on the pyramid of student voice (e.g., Mitra, 2018), a “typology of three levels of student voice activities—listening, collaboration and leadership” (p. 473), suggesting the greater the collaboration and leadership of students, the greater the educational development. We also consider literature on professional learning and PAR, as a form of AR, to report findings from a qualitative study examining how an Australian PAR-based PD shapes teachers’ SPS use. Through aligned coding of collected data, we seek to understand the following:

• What are teachers’ perceptions of SPS as student voice-based assessment initiatives and the way they correspond with professional learning?

• Whether and how a PAR-based PD informs teachers’ professional learning to shape their interaction with SPS?

Along with studying how teachers perceive their approach to SPS following the PAR-based PD, we also investigate how, if at all, they take up what they learn in the program when working with students. We pay particular attention to the ways they describe how and why they make certain practice decisions. The study illustrates how student voice data can be utilized in ways that improve teachers’ agency and honor their professionalism, offering pathways for practitioner empowerment in assessment spaces increasingly shaped by students’ voices. It contributes to a nascent body of evidence on student voice to inform teacher practice (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2020, 2022; Finefter-Rosenbluh & Berry, 2023; Finefter-Rosenbluh et al., 2021; Mitra, 2018), acknowledging teachers’ limited assessment competencies to shape classroom experiences (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013). The study signals how unpacking SPS in a PAR-based PD could be a crucial and under-researched lever for enhancing educational processes, especially as they relate to personal, professional, and political dimensions of teacher agency and assessment.

In what follows, we offer a literature review comprising four axes. The first axis outlines the pyramid of student voice as a key theoretical framework used in this study, illuminating an ongoing scholarly conversation about implementations of student voice initiatives. The second axis discusses the use of SPS for teaching assessment. The third axis provides a brief overview on teacher professional learning, highlighting how it better occurs in authentic contexts. The fourth axis portrays PAR as a form of AR, in which teachers engage with their students in the collaborative pursuit of practical solutions to educational issues. The next sections depict the research design, present, and discuss the findings. We conclude by noting the study’s limitations and implications for professional learning.

Literature Review

The Pyramid of Student Voice

The concept of student voice positions students as active social actors who can provide unique and valuable perspectives on schooling (e.g., Cook-Sather, 2020), highlighting diverse ways that students could be involved—with educators’ help—in shaping the educational craft (e.g., Baroutsis et al., 2016). The pyramid of student voice, in this respect, is a framework encompassing a typology of three activity levels: being heard, collaborating, and building capacity for leadership (Mitra, 2005); demonstrating how learner development opportunities are possible as “student voice is increased” (Mitra & Gross, 2009, p. 523). Noting how the collaboration and leadership levels could lead to assessment development (e.g., students offering feedback for PD improvement), Mitra (2018) reminds us of how the promise of voice without actually acting on it can trigger increased student alienation and disconnection from schooling. Indeed, in the most basic and common form of student voice—being heard—teachers seek students’ perspectives to interpret the meaning of data, understanding that when not involving them, the blame of educational difficulty shifts to the students themselves, rather than to the school’s structure. Listening to students can be a contested process, but including their perspectives ensures a better representation and understanding of the educational picture (Fine et al., 2007).

The next (higher) level—collaborating with adults—foregrounds teachers’ and students’ joint work, envisioned to make changes in the school, including by collecting data on different issues (e.g., using SPS) and implementing solutions. In this process, teachers tend to initiate the relationship with students, bearing responsibility and making final decisions on group activities or further procedures. Such a collaborative exercise could improve the school’s culture and teaching processes (e.g., Rudduck & Flutter, 2000). Finally, the building capacity for leadership level, which is at the top of the pyramid and the least common level, enables procedures where students assume authority roles, with the teachers’ assistance (Mitra, 2018). Students bring their voice into decision-making processes and seek ways to “turn their vision of student-teacher collaboration into an action plan” (Mitra, 2006, p. 8). While they can find themselves inhibited by school structures, they are provided with opportunities to assume leadership roles where they could build partnerships and improve communication with their teachers. Such strategies might be classified as “teacher-focused” activities (e.g., where students serve as experts of classroom experiences) or “student-focused” activities (e.g., where students initiate activities with teachers to provide them with a better sense of their needs). Both types of activities can increase informality, help make curricular changes, and develop teachers’ belief in the value of teacher–student partnerships. Many examples of this level exist outside of the auspices of the school, including activities where students serve as a source of change by questioning structural injustices (Mitra, 2007). In some cases, students work out of their institution’s scope (e.g., meet outside school hours) to provide a more general understanding of state, community, or their school issues—requiring them to gain the legitimacy and trust of teachers (Mitra, 2006).

For over two decades, we have witnessed a growing body of research stressing the importance of attending to student voice, at different levels, when seeking to understand teaching and learning (e.g., Fielding, 2001a, 2001b, Rudduck & Fielding, 2006; Rudduck & Flutter, 2000). This study concurs that when teachers and students are involved in exploring educational intricacies, they could demonstrate transformative and emancipatory outcomes (Kane & Chimwayange, 2014). The study seeks to identify teachers’ interaction with the three student voice activity levels in and throughout a PAR-based PD for SPS use.

Student Perception Surveys to Assess Teaching

The positioning of students within different educational processes is increasingly discussed in the literature, with scholars noting how SPS, as student voice-based initiatives for teaching assessment, can be a reliable and valid source—illuminating key aspects of teacher practice (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2020, 2021; Kuhfeld, 2017; Peterson et al., 2000; Wagner et al., 2013). Sporadically used in K-12 schools, though usually not for high-stakes decisions, SPS were found to be better predictors of student scores on criterion-referenced tests than teacher self-ratings or principal ratings (Wilkerson et al., 2000). Wallace et al. (2016) illustrate, for example, how comparing SPS responses and classroom observation results with the general responsivity and classroom management dimensions among 1,049 American middle school students can be significantly and positively associated with teacher value-added measures based on a state mathematics test.

Discussing the Measures of Effective Teaching Project’s (2012) key findings, scholars also note that SPS can explain more of the variance in teacher value-added measures than a multilevel principal component analysis—highlighting the potential value of student feedback. Stressing how student achievement is not the cause of the student perceptions, studies associate SPS measures with standardized measures of student achievement, with the latter gathered not from the same students who responded to the SPS, but rather from a different group of students taught by the same teacher. This process guaranteed that students’ achievement was not the cause of their perceptions, namely, SPS measures can significantly predict student learning in a teacher’s class (Raudenbush & Jean, 2014).

It is unsurprising, therefore, that SPS have been increasingly promoted by policymakers, marking an estimated growth of 12% from the early 1990s when they were used in fewer than 5% of American K-12 school districts nationwide (Loup et al., 1996) to 17% in the largest districts in the 2000s (Steinberg & Donaldson, 2016). Similarly, Australian states have been promoting the use of SPS in schools, acknowledging the ratification of Article 12 of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), positioning the “participation rights for children . . . [as] . . . a new norm” (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2019, p. 29). The idea upholds the need to incorporate children’s rights (such as freedom of speech) to provide a platform enabling the opinions of children to be heard in school procedures. Nevertheless, scholars lament tokenistic agendas (e.g., Lundy, 2018), challenges of teacher buy-in (Gehlbach et al., 2018), limited representation of educational realities (Schulz et al., 2014), policy intricacies (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2022), and lack of support (Finefter-Rosenbluh et al., 2021) as SPS imperatives. Examining a PD designed to support teachers in working with SPS data is the focal point of this study.

Teacher Professional Learning

Several studies capture teachers’ professional learning as a journey reflecting their morals, knowledge, sociopolitical environment, and practice (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2016; Opfer & Pedder, 2011), noting how related outcomes can be unpredictable (Garner & Kaplan, 2019); thus, there may be no one best way to design effective PD (Noonan, 2019). In this study, some teachers seek, for instance, to focus on certain SPS measures (e.g., teacher–student relationship, belonging), while others choose to engage with other dimensions in their professional learning (e.g., pedagogical effectiveness, valuing of subject). Some challenges can transpire when the PD aims to produce a reform-minded teacher (teaching to certain standards) whose professional identity is incompatible with the current norm (Luehmann, 2007). To be successful, then, a PD may need to unpack and transform various components constituting one’s goals, worldview, self-efficacy beliefs, and perceived possibilities for action as a teacher (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2020; Garner & Kaplan, 2019).

Relatedly, studies suggest that teachers’ professional growth better occurs in real teaching situations (e.g., Camburn, 2010), where they are given authentic opportunities to apply what they have learned in and throughout their teaching (Tuytens & Devos, 2014). Scholars show that communication between colleagues can also support teacher growth, particularly when involving collaborative processes with expert teachers in the same school (e.g., James & McCormick, 2009). Productive PD to support processes of SPS-based teaching assessment, therefore, should be conducted in a safe environment allowing teachers to unpack educational issues ethically and genuinely with their peers (Desimone, 2009; Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2016). This study acknowledges that PD that authentically links to teachers’ practice and enables safe collaboration between colleagues can be more valuable for professional learning than external systems of evaluation—providing fertile ground for teacher action and professional growth (e.g., Kurum & Cinkir, 2019), as described next.

Practitioner Research and PAR

Practitioner research is an umbrella term used to refer to a wide array of educational research approaches, genres, and purposes. It can be defined as “intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own practice” (Dinkelman, 2003, p. 8) focusing on “the development of local knowledge” (i.e., practice improvement) and “public knowledge” (i.e., academic knowledge generation) (Heikkinen et al., 2016, p. 3). AR, in this respect, is viewed as a form of practitioner research concerned with addressing an issue arising within one’s context—intended to inform future practice at the individual and the collective level.

Acknowledging how AR has long been part of the education and social science research fields, Noffke (1997a, 1997b) sought to identify its ‘dimensions’ as aspects capturing different layers of assumptions, purposes, and practices, positioning it as a sequence of intellectual activities in socially changing contexts. Identifying three dimensions within AR—the professional, the personal, and the political—Noffke (2009) notes the public sphere of professionalism and the domain of the personal as particular manifestations of the political. Such dimensions, she argues, are not discrete categories, rather they are facets of AR working toward the improvement of practice. Doing so “with a vision of what might make the lives of children and those with whom they work, and indeed the larger society, ‘better’,” such “visions of change,” she stresses, embody the political in the sense that “they all work through and often against existing lines of power” (p. 8).

Specifically, the professional dimension of AR illuminates processes of thinking through whether such research produces new knowledge about teaching and learning to help link theory and practice and generate novel ways of understanding practice. In addition, AR produces knowledge not only for the ‘self’ who is doing the research but also for others to use and develop—enhancing the quality and the status of teaching. Similarly, the personal dimension positions AR as a practice that can affect one’s personal development and distinguish between their own and collaborative processes. This dimension highlights ways of working with teachers to examine connections between their personal beliefs and practice—often involving ideals of social justice at the individual level. Finally, the political dimension—embedded in the other two dimensions—illuminates another purpose for AR, focusing on creating democratic processes in schools. The dimension highlights a search for solutions to social issues and the development of collaboration, capturing AR as an exercise speaking to the struggles of the voiceless, using research methods to leverage change.

Central to AR is the participation of all those involved in the situation, recognizing that students almost always are consequential stakeholders—‘sources of information’ and research partners (Smit et al., 2020). PAR, in this regard, is an approach to AR illuminating the participation and the engagement of community members affected by the research. According to Pine (2008), PAR “embraces the liberating concept of teachers, students, and community constructing knowledge to change themselves, their educational institutions, and their communities” (p. 55). Fundamental to PAR is that research and action become a single process and that new understandings are sought and immediately applied to improve practice (e.g., teacher–student relationships). The result will be in the form of the opportunity for researchers and participants to link improved capacity and understanding from AR with social change at the individual, collective, or organizational levels (McIntyre, 2008).

In education contexts, PAR entails shifting the teacher/student power structure from hierarchical positions in which the teacher makes all the decisions about goals, content, methods, norms, and standards, to a more equal, democratic position where students are seen as partners in mutual learning processes (Smit et al., 2020; Taylor & Robinson, 2009). Conducted in collaboration between teachers and students, PAR can address multiple goals, including (i) enhancing teacher awareness of and capacity for enabling student participation; (ii) developing a participatory school practice (by modeling democracy and citizenship in practice); (iii) improving student–teacher relationships; (iv) creating a context for teachers’ PD; (v) improving practice through teacher AR in PD; and (vi) developing motivating and differentiated contexts for students (Smit et al., 2020). In this study, teachers position themselves as researchers working with students to (re)examine and act on their SPS teaching assessment data.

Research Design

Objective

This study explores the influence of a PAR-based PD on secondary teachers’ professional learning and the way it shapes their interaction with SPS, as student voice-based teaching assessment initiatives. The study examines how such a PD, positioning teachers as researchers to develop systematic inquiry toward practice and community change (Manfra, 2019), prompts them to act upon SPS data. Highlighting conditions, opportunities, and constraints for teacher use of SPS, the study explores whether and how such PD drives authentic professional learning, as a continuing, active, and social exercise of practice improvement. The study seeks to supplement empirical literature on SPS for teaching assessment, student voice, PAR as a form of AR, and professional learning—viewing teachers as social agents responsible for providing quality education.

Context

The study was conducted at one secondary school (Years 7–12) located in the state of Victoria, Australia, where educators are encouraged to incorporate student voice initiatives so that students “actively shape their own education” (VicDET, 2020a). Like other Australian states that employ general perception surveys, Victoria administers the Attitudes to School Survey (VicDET, 2020b), seeking to understand students’ overall experiences in schools. Similarly, SPS for teaching assessment have become an increasing component in Victorian strategies,—highlighting the importance of student-led activities in fulfilling their needs and enhancing educational processes (VicDET, 2021a).

The school in which this study is located was selected due to its solid culture of student voice, including students’ active participation in the Victorian Student Representative Council—“the peak body representing school aged students in Victoria” (VicSRC, 2018, paragraph 3). The school was part of a recent large-scale study illustrating teachers’ struggle to act upon SPS (Finefter-Rosenbluh et al., 2021), stressing the need for a complementary PD to support teachers in the process. The study aligns with the Victorian policies for teacher education, calling teachers “to undertake the standard Performance and Development Plan process or an alternative Statement of Expectation process” which includes three key stages: (i) reflection and goal setting, where teachers are encouraged to identify evidence and strategies to support their goal achievement; (ii) professional practice and learning, where teachers unpack their practice with colleagues; and (iii) feedback and review, where teachers engage with constructive feedback conversations and refinement of their development plan (VicDET, 2021b). Indeed, Victorian teachers are required to participate in PD programs to receive advancement in rank and wages. They can choose a PD from the Education Department’s offerings or receive explicit recommendations from their educational leaders and colleagues who may choose to work with subject associations or nonstate companies.

The PD

The program discussed in this study was chosen by the school’s educational leaders as one of the PD offerings in 2021. It encompasses professional learning processes aligned with the school’s values of student voice and the Victorian Education Department’s performance and development cycle stages. Teachers self-selected into the PD based on their interest in the topic, and there was no prerequisite for familiarity or experience with PAR. Five 1-hr PD workshops were held at the school over a 7-month period, from March to September 2021 (see Supplemental Appendix A: Key phases of the PAR-based PD program). Each workshop was supported by the school (cultural facilitation) and the first two authors (external assistance), ultimately led by the teachers themselves, driven by SPS data-related questions and strategies/solutions they wished to investigate. To avoid power-related issues/effects, school leaders were not involved in any way/shape/form in the workshops. The teachers were familiar with SPS as they had engaged with different student surveys and other student voice initiatives in the last few years. However, this PD was the first time they have formally and rigorously engaged with SPS data through PAR. Acknowledging teachers’ struggle to act upon SPS, the PD sought to introduce them to elements of the pyramid of student voice and PAR, as a form of AR, seeking to develop their belief in and understanding of the value of teacher-student partnerships.

Method

This study draws upon semi-structured individual interviews with 11 teachers participating in a PAR-based PD designed to help them act on SPS data. The SPS data were collected from 1,393 students using an online version of the Panorama Student Survey (2020) seeking to capture students’ perceptions of their teachers’ practices in the classroom. The survey’s Student Survey is being used by numerous American schools and aims to improve educational processes. The survey’s scales have been subjected to rigorous psychometric testing, providing convincing evidence of reliability, as well as content, substantive, structural, convergent, and discriminant validity (Panorama Education, 2015). The students of the participating teachers took the survey in March 2021, almost 2 months after the beginning of the school year in Australia. The SPS (included scales are provided in Supplemental Appendix B) was open for 3 weeks, with the participating teachers administering them in their colleagues’ classrooms.

While a total of 18 teachers took part in the PD, seven failed to provide consent to participate in the interviews. ¹ Therefore, and to triangulate the data, we investigated the 11 teachers’ interviews, research projects, and related artifacts produced during and outside the workshops (e.g., teachers’ posters, additional surveys, and external funding applications for further research projects). All the participating teachers’ reflective notes ² (on each workshop) were also examined.

Procedures and research instruments were approved by the first author’s institutional review board (IRB ID 14271) and the Department of Education and Training Victoria. Participants were experienced Year 7 to 12 teachers of different subjects, including maths, history, English, and science. They were assured that they could not be identified in any way, informed that their participation in the research component of the PD was completely voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any given time. To preserve their anonymity, they were provided with pseudonyms and their teaching subject was not mentioned. Of the 11 teacher participants, eight were female, following the gender distribution characterizing the teaching profession in Australia. Participants received a AUD$20 gift certificate for participating in the individual interviews, which were conducted by the first two authors at the end of 2021 (after the teachers’ projects were completed) and took place on Zoom, lasting 30 to 45 minutes. Notes were taken during the interviews that were digitally recorded and transcribed by the platform. To ensure clarity and accuracy, interview transcripts were double checked by an independent research assistant and compared with notes taken during the interviews. In their interviews, teachers were presented with open-ended questions about their experiences with the PD and its influence on their SPS use (Supplemental Appendix C presents the interview guidelines).

Analysis

The first round of analysis focused on the 11 teachers’ interviews and all the teacher-participants’ reflective notes which helped answer RQ1. To help answer RQ2, the second round of analysis included the teachers’ interview data and their PAR-based research projects (driven by SPS data) and related artifacts produced. All the reflective notes were analyzed at this stage too. Data were analyzed through a theoretically/literature informed thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) that made use of theories/literature at a system and individual level. Theory/literature guided the analysis by providing themes by which the data could be examined, coded, and categorized. To ensure reliability, thematic analysis included several rounds of categorization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), with data sources being read independently multiple times to identify themes and discourses related to the pyramid of student voice (e.g., Mitra & Gross, 2009) and PAR as a form of AR (e.g., Noffke, 2009). Additional generated themes related to student voice and PAR-based professional learning. Disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach a consensus. Categorization was drawn out through this method to theorize the data more effectively, associating the macro processes of P(AR) with micro day-to-day professional learning developments to foreground meaningful interaction with SPS, as student voice-based assessment initiatives.

Our initial set of categories reflected two general themes in both sets of coding, anchored around (i) transformations of survey practice for teacher agency and (ii) personal, professional, and political complexities in SPS-based PAR processes for professional learning. At this stage of analysis, our independent coding resembled the general codes generated from the RQs and the interview guidelines. Upon analyzing all the data according to these categories and delineating subcategories, we highlighted influences of the PAR-based PD on the teachers’ professional learning and approach to the SPS data. We then conducted a further round of categorization to analyze the teachers’ interaction with SPS during the PD (see Supplemental Appendix D: The study’s coding scheme). A final coding scheme anchoring around three key themes was produced.

Findings

Overall, collected data portrayed an intricate account of the way the PAR-based PD informed the participant-teachers’ professional learning, shaping their interaction with SPS, as described below:

Transforming “Survey Fatigue” to Increased Student Voice

The teacher-participants stated their familiarity with SPS as student voice-based assessment initiatives, lamenting their and their students’ “survey fatigue” over the years. They illustrated, however, how the PAR-based PD informed their professional learning, prompting them to provide more opportunities for student voice to address the SPS data. For example, Julia, who focused on the valuing of subject SPS measure, realized in the PAR process that “the value of the surveys is actually in its ability to provide a way into deep and ongoing conversations with students about their learning.” Acknowledging how the students were generally “regarded as passive learners who are ready to listen to the teacher but less motivated to participate and self-direct their learning,” she (re)positioned the SPS as collaborative forms of voice to improve teaching. Noting her own “survey fatigue,” she paradoxically implemented more surveys she collaboratively designed with her students—viewing this as another “opportunity for students to say how they actually feel” and how things “could be done differently.” Focusing on providing more opportunities for (increased) student voice, she concluded, “I want to learn, I want to constantly improve, I want new challenges . . . that’s why I’ll keep doing these surveys.” Similarly, Caroline, who focused on the teacher–student relationship measure in an effort to improve the relationships in the classroom, described the evolving collaborative process:

In the past, I would do a survey at the end of the year, just to see how things are going . . . it’s something we used to do at the school . . . I’ve [also] seen teachers get survey results and brush them off . . . that initial fear of having to change can be quite scary . . . I was probably like “just do it” whereas now I walk around with it . . . I found that the surveys give me a way to have a real conversation with the kids and build on that personal relationship . . . They have a lot more say now and choice about how to do things . . . more voice . . . more surveys . . . to really incorporate their feedback as much as possible.

Contemplating his own and his students’ mixed experiences with SPS over the years, Ben also remarked on the “overuse” of SPS, perceiving this teaching assessment initiative as a “tick the box” practice rather than a professional learning exercise—treating and responding to it in superficial ways. Highlighting teachers’ and students’ “survey fatigue,” seemingly complying with SPS procedures but not providing genuine responses, he explained the need for a change:

There’s a risk with the overuse of surveys that the teachers and the children get jaded, you know, another bloody survey, call it survey fatigue . . .[and] they can become complacent . . . tick the box, get this done quick as lightning, get it out of the way . . . they’re not really interested in quality feedback.

Nevertheless, he acknowledged how his PAR-based “research [goal] was to target underperforming students” as it has “always been a target area” that he was “underperforming” in. Finding it difficult to support struggling students, he focused on the SPS engagement measure, using “exit data” to initiate purposeful teacher–student collaborative discussions on task assessment criteria breakdown—revising related procedures with his underperforming students, believing that in doing so, their engagement might be improved. The process was followed by observations and note-taking of the students’ engagement in class, later discussing it with them to initiate further collaborations on assessment task design to be implemented in class. Whereas “it’s only a small anecdote,” he recalled a case in which one of his underperforming students had “turned around,” becoming more engaged, not only attending all his classes but also achieving higher grades. Marking this shift as a successful professional learning journey, Ben was “pleased to see this student putting in a bit more effort” in this collaborative assessment process. Concluding his experience, he stated, “the PD showed people the need for being a bit more tuned in and cooperative in your classes.” Likewise, Ellie saw professional learning value in the PAR process, noting, “teachers can dismiss or criticise these surveys, but the value of this program was in asking teachers to go beyond the survey, find out what’s meaningful for them and for their students, beginning with the survey data.”

Indeed, unpacking their PAR experiences, the teachers portrayed professional learning shifts to inform practice, moving from seemingly survey fatigued practices of limited use of SPS data—treated as another ritual administrative task—through to a promotion of more well-rounded attentive collaborative student voice activities. As some teachers stated in their reflective notes, “[I know] how to continue from here, collaborating and gathering more in-depth information with my students”; [I need to] “engage students more in discussing and working with data”; and “go further to explore data with students.” In fact, several teachers also sought to move higher up the student voice pyramid and build their students’ capacity for leadership in and throughout the PAR process, initiating SPS data-based novel procedures involving them in meaningful decision-making. Through introducing triangulated teacher-focused and student-focused activities—for example, sharing SPS-based insights to rethink teaching approaches and providing space for students to initiate related activities—some teachers prompted students to take leadership initiatives to (re)shape educational processes. As Julia illustrated:

We don’t get time to stop and reflect, and when we do, we resent it and sort of roll our eyes and go “oh, another survey” . . . I also had that initial response, but I stopped, to dig in, went down a rabbit hole and had a look more deeply at a particular area of the survey and it was really helpful. I think these surveys are valuable . . . so I did another survey with my students about the value [of subject], and specifically looked at what we call “employability skills” . . . my research project was about fleshing out those value questions on a deeper level and getting to think with the students about those skills and whether or not they felt they were developing them in class . . . After we did another survey, pulled it apart, discussed the responses and interviewed previous students about their employability experiences, the students were able to see the value [of subject] at a deeper level . . . we then put in an application to the Department of Education and got funding to create a whole new digital resource on the value and the transferable employability skills that it offers! . . . Now we’re creating a series of videos and digital resources with this information . . . it ended up being quite a launching pad!

While Julia’s plan to work with SPS started out at the initial level of “listening” to her students, it evolved to include their activism and leadership projects (on employability skills) intended to showcase the value of the subject at a deeper and broader/state level. This shift occurred because Julia explicitly sought to build her students’ capacity for leadership, encouraging them to take the lead to communicate, record, unpack, and share their perspectives with the broader community. Likewise, Jack, who also focused on the valuing of subject measure to improve his students’ engagement, used his SPS data as a basis for informing teaching approaches. He shared students’ text choices, suggestions for assessment procedures, and self-recorded podcasts with other classes to be potentially shared later with the community—seeking to promote new subject-related ideas/directions.

Contemplating Personal, Professional, and Political Entanglements

The teachers demonstrated different emphases in the use of SPS data in their PAR projects, echoing a dimensional amalgamation of the personal, the professional, and the political in their individual and collective learning experiences. Several teachers, for instance, focused on utilizing SPS for personal improvement purposes, examining connections between their own beliefs and their professional practices while stressing their social values. In her research project, Caroline explored new strategies with her students to better connect with them because her SPS “data revealed huge differences between [her] perceived relationships and their responses.” Further discussing this with colleagues outside her subject area to develop her professional knowledge about relationship building, the different dimensions of AR became intertwined as her project progressed. Starting with an emphasis on self-improvement (personal) and a shared concern to enhance students’ experiences of schooling (professional and political), her project advanced into developing a deeper understanding of practice via self-reflection and dialogue with colleagues (professional). Seeking to “do more of that sort of talk about students’ weekend and about my weekend and about my kids . . . and create more of that [close] relationship with them,” she sought to “do a bit more of a focus on positive relationships” in her class. Unpacking her thoughts with her students, she created another short survey—based on students’ suggestions—specifically asking about the “things that should be worked out to address relationships issues students felt.” Including such questions in the day-to-day educational processes facilitated “a conversation with the kids that helped build on that personal relationship” and create a more inclusive classroom. This collaborative process—based on students’ calls to also include regular check-ins—helped finding solutions to teacher–student relationship-building quandaries as common predicaments of social change (political).

Likewise, Jack’s project emerged from a personal and political orientation, highlighting his professional goals. Examining his SPS data with students and colleagues, he found it personally and professionally helpful in building shared understandings of broader socioeducational issues such as student engagement with, and attitudes toward, different subjects. He learned from his SPS that students “don’t value [his subject] beyond doing the required tasks and getting good grades.” Developing his research project through a series of conversations with students about the relevance of his subject to their lives (political), he prompted them to (re)think their various skills and suggest how to better engage in meaningful learning (personal and professional). As he explained:

I wanted them to think outside of just, “am I going to uni and study [this subject]?” Probably not . . . but are they going to use literacy or research skills or have an understanding of the world around them? We discussed that and they got to write ideas for contextual learning . . .

The students “responded positively” to Jack’s initiatives, which encouraged him to “keep thinking differently” about his position, subject, and pedagogy (personal, political, and professional). As he concluded, “it made me think about what the students were really thinking about me and [my subject] and try some new stuff . . . it was a good push that I needed.”

Sharing personal and professional understandings of practice through examining SPS data in PAR processes appeared to correspond with the educators’ political notions of knowledge—making otherwise tacit practices explicit. According to Sharon, she appreciated hearing different perspectives about common issues (personal), something she felt did not happen very often within the school (professional and political). She noted how professional conversations usually tend to be with teachers in the same subject area—a practice that keeps teachers “pigeonholed” into particular ways of thinking/doing. For her, collaboratively unpacking SPS data helped bridge disciplinary divides and generate shared knowledge (political), contributing to professional improvement through personal and collective efforts. As she described:

I grouped up with some teachers that were looking at the same [SPS] question about valuing of subject, and it was really interesting because we were all from different subject areas . . . I think we get pretty much pigeonholed with the way we think about what school is, what assessment looks like and all those sorts of things, so this experience was really good . . . It got us thinking about new ways to do things and talking about why and how we communicate about it, which is really what we need.

Likewise, Ben and Julia brought a personal and political orientation to their projects as they sought to understand and improve their students’ perceptions of the value of their subjects, beyond school. Recognizing the need to empower students through providing them with opportunities to speak up (political), they promoted ideals of social justice, creating a new discourse that positions their topics as apparatuses intended to develop 21st-century skills for social change. As Ben noted, “it’s important to demonstrate to the kids that we’re fair . . . their opinions and views matter.” For Julia, as her PAR project unfolded, she (re)articulated its purpose to “flesh out those [SPS] subject value questions . . . and get the students to think about 21st-century skills . . . which include critical thinking, communication, presentation, digital connection and leadership.” Her PAR goal was to help the students identify “whether they felt they were developing these skills in her class to be applied outside.” Subsequently contacting the Department of Education to present these new conceptual project-based ideas (personal and professional), seeking to suggest future directions that might help improve both teacher and student experiences, she proposed new ways in which her subject could be taught at Victorian schools (professional and political). Conversely, exchanging SPS-based ideas and creating shared meanings (personal and professional) highlighted a political dimension, through an ongoing democratic participation.

(Re)Building Agency

Viewing students as PAR partners, the teachers (re)positioned the SPS as apparatuses of teacher agency, with their voices being heard and collectively (re)articulated in the student voice-based teaching assessment process to inform professional learning. As Sasha declared, “I liked the idea of having our own research questions for our class . . . the process of formulating our questions specific to a class.” Admitting how actively “designing and experimenting” her “own plan” changed the way she “perceives and analyses student survey data,” she noted her aim to explore “different ways of delivering content to see which way the students find more engaging and interesting.” In doing so, she seemingly regained agency, concluding her PAR experience as “effective,” highlighting the “shift” she “felt in the class dynamics and in the students’ ability to trust” her. In their interviews, Julia and Caroline portrayed similar experiences:

On reflection, the person that most benefited from the surveys is me . . . I probably have benefited more than the students . . . of course, students have become more aware of the value of the subject, but it’s really me . . . I’ve become more present and aware of its value myself.

For me, and for the people that I work with, this process really helped hone-in on what we’re teaching . . . it just helped us create that knowledge in our own heads and we’re going to be able to talk about it more broadly . . .

Repositioning SPS as vehicles for teacher agency throughout PAR, the teachers acknowledged the former as a promising collective learning tool of professional empowerment rather than a given accountability measure of individual teaching. As Kelly, Elaine, and Julia remarked:

I think the endemic problem with schools is that we’re so focused on accountability in a formal way . . . like the focus is on ticking boxes . . . I hate using the word agency, but this [PD] was about our agency . . . which is also about that feeling of connectedness with students . . . so the focus is on both . . .

We’re pretty fixated on SACs and GATs ³ . . . Is that what school really about? We had some important and productive discussions about how we feel about school in general . . .

We should be developing voices within the classroom and within the broader school and community . . . people [should] have that feeling of connectedness and some agency to control what they’re doing . . . to feel not just that they’ve got a voice but feel comfortable to speak it.

Describing PAR experiences as processes giving the confidence to speak up, Travis also stated how investigating SPS data with the students can both help the latter accept responsibility for their learning and teachers in reowning their practice. As he stressed, “if teachers want to find out something about their teaching and they’re going to ask the students about this, then they’re going to feel a lot of agency ... and a teacher agency-led inquiry can be a really powerful thing.” For him, such “professional learning communities where you have agency in what you want to work on with students” can be meaningful in forming a “shared teacher-student language” to improve teaching and learning.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examines how a PAR-based PD informs teachers’ professional learning and influences their interaction with SPS, as student voice-based assessment initiatives. The first RQ seeks to identify teachers’ perceptions of SPS as student voice-based assessment initiatives and how those correspond with their professional learning. Analysis of the teachers’ interviews and reflective notes illustrates their familiarity with SPS and ‘survey fatigued practices,’ suggesting limited professional learning over the years. The second RQ aims to examine whether and how a PAR-based PD informs teachers’ professional learning to shape their interaction with SPS. Analysis of the teacher interviews, research projects, related artifacts, and reflective notes suggests that the PD has deepened the teachers’ professional learning, prompting them to overcome survey fatigue and move from a seemingly limited use of SPS data to a purposeful encouragement of students to voice their opinions. The latter includes teacher-student collaborations and even, in a few cases, students taking active part in leadership initiatives (inside and outside of the classroom, for example, designing resources to improve practice with/in the community). This moving up the pyramid of student voice (Mitra & Gross, 2009) captures the teachers ‘transformed’ learning of student voice-based assessment initiatives to (re)shape their practice.

Secondly, the PD mirrors various emphases in the teachers’ use of SPS, illuminating a personal, professional, and ‘political’ amalgamation of learning that highlights their assumptions, purposes, and practices for social change (Noffke, 1997a, 1997b). Such amalgamation illustrates a political learning process in action (Noffke, 2009)—built on the teachers’ active listening to students and sharing SPS-driven insights with peers to act on the surveys. Specifically, the teachers revealed instances of ‘personal’ growth as well as the development of a shared professional body of SPS knowledge in relation to their and their peers’ experiences (see also Hardy et al., 2018). In their PAR-based projects, the teachers produced new SPS knowledge for teaching—through sharing different ways of thinking about and working with such student voice-based assessment initiatives—as well as linking theory and practice to generate new ways of understanding broad socioeducational issues of student attitudes toward subjects inside and outside of the classroom. ‘Personally’ seeking self-improvement in the PAR process, the teachers shared ‘professional’ and ‘political’ concerns for students’ schooling experiences, illuminating contestations of student voice, teaching assessment, and professional growth in the educational system. In fact, one could say that their PAR to act upon SPS capture a shift in their institutional power structures, not only between themselves and their students but also between themselves and their peers, aiming to establish more equal positions as partners in a learning process driven by different voices (e.g., Taylor & Robinson, 2009). The PAR process developed the teachers’ awareness of and capacity for enabling student participation, model ideals of democracy and citizenship in practice, and promote an active search to improve schooling experiences—encompassing the public sphere of professionalism and its personal and political manifestations (Noffke, 2009).

Thirdly, findings suggest that the teachers (re)positioned SPS as vehicles of teacher agency in the PAR process, demonstrating a shift in the way they approach such assessment data. With the participants moving from primarily viewing SPS as accountability measures of teaching (see also Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2020) to empowering professional learning tools, such teaching assessment instruments seemingly ‘evolved’ into apparatuses of teacher agency. Indeed, research shows how SPS can be viewed by teachers as ‘techniques of power’ that lead to the relegation of teacher–student relationships to the margins (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2022). This study illustrates how PAR investigations of SPS data—conducted with the students themselves—can not only help the latter accept responsibility for their learning but also assist teachers in regaining agency in “complex times in which many issues related to teacher quality, equity, and justice are so highly contentious and politicized” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2022, p. 447). For the teachers, the PAR process facilitated agency-led inquiry to inform their professional learning. Through designing their own research, they became active in the ways they engage with, and address, SPS data. Their professional learning metamorphosed as their own voices were amplified and collectively (re)articulated in the SPS process—helping them to steer the student voice-based teaching assessment ship in ways that inform practice.

These findings correspond with other studies noting how the promotion of teacher agency relies on teachers’ perceptions of their practice and collective processes of development and shared considerations (e.g., Biesta et al., 2015), fitting the juxtaposition between student voice as a human rights discourse and teacher professional learning (e.g., Perry-Hazan & Neuhof, 2021). The findings also demonstrate how educators’ professional growth occurs in supportive environments where they are given authentic opportunities to unpack assessment practices (Finefter-Rosenbluh & Berry, 2023) and dissect real teaching situations (Camburn, 2010) and their learnings (Tuytens & Devos, 2014) through ongoing cooperation and communication with peers (e.g., Admiraal et al., 2016; Finefter-Rosenbluh & Power, 2023).

Limitations and Future Research

A key limitation of this study lies in its focus on teachers’ SPS-based PAR experiences, namely, it did not go beyond their reports to elaborate on student participation in the AR projects or explore workplace conditions that may shed more light on professional learning. Future studies could expand the scope to richly portray students’ participatory roles in such processes.

Secondly, the PD reported in this study focused on results from externally designed SPS, rather than surveys based on consultations with students. Further studies may position students as survey designers or active leaders to examine how it informs teacher professional learning. Yet, considering the current PAR-based PD is relatively lengthy and rich in content, one may assume that accounting for survey design-unique contextual factors would not undermine its related transformative experience.

Thirdly, the findings of this study were predominantly based on data collected via individual interviews with teachers. It is possible that supplementing the interview findings with data collected using an anonymous teacher survey (completed by all PD participants) would have allowed for analytical comparisons to shine light on the extent to which some teachers may have had more or less transformative experiences than others, or the factors that could help explain such differences or educational impact. Future research could therefore consider adding anonymous teacher surveys to individual interviews and other data sources.

Concluding Remarks

Over the years, schools have amassed SPS as large quantities of student voice-based teaching assessment data, acknowledging it as reliable and valid sources illuminating important aspects of teacher practice though socially-educationally contested tools. Indeed, Fielding (2001a) has long lamented how “student voice is sought primarily through insistent imperatives of accountability rather than enduring commitments to democratic agency” (p. 123). He highlighted how the upsurge of student consultation seems to be driven by a strong sense of fear, control, and a spurious surveillance discourse of stakeholder involvement, rather than a genuine desire to nurture creativity and freedom of thought and action that could transform institutions as sites of shared power and responsibility (Fielding, 2001b). This study explores how student voice-based assessment data can be used in ways that honor teachers’ professionalism and leverage students’ position for their voices to be amplified. Modeling how this could be achieved—illuminating practices of democratic agency built into deliberative participatory processes with democratic qualities (e.g., Erman, 2013)—the article acknowledges the growing calls for teachers to be agentic professionals in spaces increasingly shaped by highly politicized agendas where teacher actions are intentionally dynamic but institutionally constrained (e.g., Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2022). The study offers a way forward to empowering teachers and strengthening their agency in assessment spaces increasingly shaped by student voices.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871231200278 – Supplemental material for Acting Upon Student Voice-Based Teaching Assessment Initiatives: An Account of Participatory Action Research for Teacher Professional Learning

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871231200278 for Acting Upon Student Voice-Based Teaching Assessment Initiatives: An Account of Participatory Action Research for Teacher Professional Learning by Ilana Finefter-Rosenbluh, Amanda Berry and Tracii Ryan in Journal of Teacher Education