Understanding Schooling Through the Eyes of Students by Murphy Joseph F.;

Author:Murphy, Joseph F.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Corwin Press
Published: 2018-01-04T14:42:14.743086+00:00

Empowering Work

As with most of the aspects of this chapter on constructed learning, there is a fairly large gap between what happens in schools and what students tell us should be unfolding. That is, empowering work is the exception, not the rule, for most students in schools (Rudduck & Flutter, 2004). We also have abundant evidence that “those who arguably most need to control learning appear to experience the least control over their learning, that lower-achieving working class pupils are least likely to feel that they have control over their learning” (Arnot et al., 2004, p. 72). And where children have little influence over their learning, they are often disengaged (Wallace, 1996a). All of this returns us to our starting point on eyes: Students generally express a desire for “greater independence and autonomy in their classroom learning” (McIntyre et al., 2005, p. 154), “increased control over their learning” (Arnot et al., 2004, p. 87).

Empowerment in the literature on student eyes is expressed in a variety of overlapping but somewhat differently nuanced terms. In places, for example, the discussion centers on degrees of autonomy (Brewster & Fager, 2000). When autonomy surfaces, it is often employed as a modifier to such ideas as “thinking” (McIntyre et al., 2005, p. 155) and “self-expression” (Mergendoller & Packer, 1985, p. 591). Empowering work is often defined by the presence of student voice. Here at the most general level we see encouraging students “to be vocal about the things they feel [they] need to be vocal about” (Garcia et al., 1995, p. 141). It is about general respect for students’ viewpoints (Johnston & Nicholls, 1995). More specifically, it is about input in “the learning process” (Roeser et al., 2000, p. 466) and greater influence on classroom topics (Lee, 1999), about “involving pupils in making decisions about teaching activities” (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p. 11), “suitable discussion topics” (Alvermann et al., 1996, p. 264), and the use of time (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). The test, of course, is “the establishment of an atmosphere where students feel that their ideas [are] taken seriously” (Ellwood, 1993, p. 74). More tangibly still, voice is about “creating opportunities and encouraging student-centered questioning” (Commeyras, 1995, p. 101) and “opportunities for self-evaluation” of class activities (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p. 113).

Empowering work is also about the closely related topic of choice, what Poplin and Weeres (1994, p. 32) refer to as “self-chosen situations,” and control over learning (Roeser et al., 2000). One aspect of choice refers to “control over working conditions” (Smerdon, 2002, p. 289). And one piece of this storyline focuses on open as opposed to more constrained or closed activities (Wigfield et al., 1998). Choice and control are associated with the concepts of student ownership and identity (Rudduck & Flutter, 2004), independence (Burke & Grosvenor, 2003; Steele et al., 1971), self-determination (Oldfather et al., 1999), agency (Arnot et al., 2004), peer leadership (Alvermann et al., 1996), student authority (Johnston & Nicholls, 1995), and self-management (Mergendoller & Packer, 1985). All, in turn,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.