The Use of Student Voice to Inform Communities

of Practice in the Lesson Design Process:

Conclusions for System Leaders Seeking
to Increase Student Engagement






Mark Edward Knight






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




Doctor of Education




University of Washington

2009





Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
College of Education



University of Washington
Graduate School



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



Mark Edward Knight



and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.





Chair of the Supervisory Committee:


__________________________________________________________________
Michael A. Copland

Reading Committee:


__________________________________________________________________
Michael A. Copland

__________________________________________________________________
Kathy Kimball

__________________________________________________________________
Stephen Fink

__________________________________________________________________
Steven L Tanimoto


Date:__________________________

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


Signature _____________________________________

Date ________________________________________

University of Washington

Abstract

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

Mark Edward Knight

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


More than ever, our nation is putting pressure on our public schools to ensure that all
students achieve. Unfortunately there is large disconnect between this goal and what
many students are able to demonstrate in terms of their skills and knowledge. What is
often missing from the conversation is that learning is not done by mandate; rather it is
done through a conscious effort by educators to engage students in the material that the
greater community deems important. This type of learning requires a deeper
understanding on the part of teachers about the students that enter their classrooms. It
requires a change in the traditional teacher-student relationship which suggests that
teachers are the experts and students are passive receivers. Instead, students must move
to the forefront and be allowed to have a voice in their education. This places the teacher
in the position of listener and allows them to gain insight into what engages students in
their learning. Therefore, system leaders are faced with the challenge of how to best
provide the capacity for student voice to influence teacher practice so that the end result
is an increase in student engagement and overall achievement. The intent of this action
research study is to look at a small suburban high schools use of student voice in the
lesson design process and how that leads to greater engagement in the classroom.
Through the use of student focus groups, teachers were able to learn about their students
prior to designing classroom activities. Qualitative methods of observations and
interviews were used over a 7-month period of time involving 30 secondary teachers and
38 students in grades 10-12. What was discovered was that students in this process
experienced a high degree of empowerment over the fact that adults were interested in
what they had to say regarding their interests and experiences. While it is too early to tell
if this method leads to an increase in student achievement, overall, the study concluded
that the use of student voice activities in this setting increased the engagement level of
both students and teachers.





i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures....................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1. Engagement and Student Voice........................................................................ 1
Introduction and the Problem of Practice............................................................... 1
The Local Context................................................................................................... 3
Activities Influencing This Project......................................................................... 6
Literature Influencing This Project......................................................................... 9
End Product........................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2. Inquiry Design................................................................................................. 18
The C4D Proposal................................................................................................. 18
The Student Voice Pilot Project............................................................................ 19
Framing the Problem of Practice.......................................................................... 21
My Location within the Project............................................................................ 26
Chapter 3. Methods........................................................................................................... 28
Type of Study........................................................................................................ 28
Boundaries............................................................................................................ 28
Participants............................................................................................................ 29
Data Collection..................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 4. Making Sense of the Data............................................................................... 35
Personal Observations and the Focus Groups....................................................... 35
Focus Group Preparation...................................................................................... 35
Video Team Story:.................................................................................... 36
Social Studies Team Story 1..................................................................... 42
Group Processing.................................................................................................. 44
Social Studies Team Story 2:.................................................................... 46
Math/English Team Story:........................................................................ 48
Results ................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 5. Conclusions, Implications, Essential Learnings, and the Future of
Student Voice in the School District..................................................................... 58
Conclusions........................................................................................................... 58
Implications........................................................................................................... 63
Essential Learnings............................................................................................... 66
The Future of Student Voice in the School District.............................................. 68

ii
List of References............................................................................................................. 70
Appendix A. Images of School Chart............................................................................... 73
Appendix B. Interview Focus Groups Administrator Questions................................... 74
Appendix C. Interview Focus Groups Teacher Questions............................................. 75
Appendix D. Interview Focus Groups Student Questions............................................. 76
Appendix E. Parent Permission Letter.............................................................................. 77
Appendix F. Teacher Participation E-Mail ....................................................................... 78



iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page

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


iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page

1. Timeline of Study......................................................................................................... 29
2. Youth Outcomes........................................................................................................... 64



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





1
CHAPTER 1. ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT VOICE
Introduction and the Problem of Practice
The 21st century learner requires a different approach from educators in order to
increase achievement in the classroom. It necessitates a higher emphasis on activities
that engage learners in the standards that have been developed by federal, state, and local
authorities as measurements of learning. To accomplish this task, a greater emphasis
needs to be placed on activities that allow for the emergence of student voice. This focus
provides an opportunity for adults to develop a greater understanding of the needs,
concerns, and struggles of todays students as well as the means by which they access and
process information. It also demands a close examination of how educators view their
role in relationship to classroom practices especially regarding the design of lessons and
units of study. For the system leader, the challenge is to create the conditions in which
student voice informs teacher practice leading to the design of engaging lessons for the
classroom.
In order for this challenge to proceed, it is important to examine the concept of
engagement, its relation to student achievement, and its connection to student voice.
Interestingly, research on the concept of engagement is relatively new thus a unified
definition of the term does not seem to exist. However, the literature suggests that there
are some common themes that provide insight into its meaning. First and foremost,
engagement reflects a persons active involvement in a task or activity (Appleton,
Christenson, & Furlong, 2008, p. 379). This involvement has been described as
infectious enthusiasm (Renzulli, 2008), which causes students to persevere in the face
of difficulty (Schlechty Center, 2008). Engagement is also associated with positive
academic outcomes, including achievement and persistence in school; and it is higher in
classrooms with supportive teachers and peers, challenging and authentic tasks,
opportunities for choice, and sufficient structure (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004,
p. 87). Ultimately, engaged students tend to earn higher grades, perform better on tests,
and drop out at lower rates, while lower levels of engagement place students at risk for


2
negative outcomes such as lack of attendance, disruptive classroom behavior, and leaving
school prior to graduation (Klem & Connell, 2004).
J ust as significant, the process of engagement is about building connections
between the students and the adults that work in the school setting. As such,
engagement is the opposite of alienation, isolation, separation, detachment, and
fragmentation. Persons are engaged to a greater or lesser degree with particular other
people, tasks, objects, or organizations (Newmann, 1989, p. 34). Therefore, in order for
high levels of engagement to exist, there must also be mechanisms in place that will
allow for open communication between adults and students. This is where the concept of
student voice enters the picture. At the most basic level, being heard becomes a
starting point where school personnel listen to students to learn about their experiences
in school (Mitra, 2006, p. 7). The hope is that this action will lead to a stronger student-
teacher relationship that creates higher levels of engagement.
Unfortunately for students, education has traditionally been an endeavor in which
they have limited control, participation, and voice in regards to their learning. Adults
create the standards as well as the lessons that will hopefully teach the corresponding
skills. Student input into these areas is rarely solicited even though they are the ones
being held responsible in the learning process. Thus a situation is created whereby
students are asked to meet requirements in areas in which they are not engaged.
Put most directly, it means that the group most affected by the direction of
educational policy, namely students and young people, currently have no
official voice. It is certainly not the case that they are hapless victims.
The evidence suggests the contrary. They are actively exercising their
right to resist, which means they are making choices to not learn. (Smyth,
2006, p. 282)

In this situation, heavy reliance is placed upon external motivators such as sanctions or
rewards in order to push students toward mastery. However, students who are
motivated to complete a task only to avoid consequences or to earn a certain grade rarely


3
exert more than the minimum effort necessary to meet their goal (Brewster & Fager,
2000).
The Local Context
As a context for this challenge, the Cascade Valley (pseudonym) School District
in Washington State has developed core beliefs around engaging students in the work
provided by teachers. Over the past 10 years, the district has partnered with an outside
agency, the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform (SCLSR). This
organization, based in Kentucky and founded by Dr. Philip Schlechty, an educational
researcher and philosopher, works with districts across the country through the Standard
Bearer Network to create a framework on which to build a clear vision as they attempt a
transformation from a compliance and attendance based organization to one that
nurtures attention and commitment at all levels in the system (Schlechty Center, 2008).
In this vision, it puts the student in the center and asks teachers to design engaging work
that students will find meaningful and interesting. In looking at Cascade Valley over
time, it would appear as though the district has benefited from this partnership in that
there has been an obvious shift in staff development, budgetary focus, communication,
and collaboration towards engaging students in the work they are given in the classroom.
This has required a close examination of the various roles that people play inside a
learning organization and how they change with this new vision.
As far as the community of Cascade Valley is concerned, there is an interesting
mix between the past and present as the area is in the middle of a transformation process
from a more rural setting, to one that relies heavily on commerce. On one hand, there is
the presence of a small town feeling that is usually associated with areas that are a great
distance from urban centers. Many families that live in the area have done so for several
generations. They farmed the land and attended Cascade Valley schools; something their
children and grandchildren do today. However, as with everything, the community is in
the midst of change. What was once a farming based economy with single dwelling
homes has turned into a vision of capitalism. With the Port of Tacoma increasing in
traffic just to the north of Cascade Valley, so too have arisen mega industrial warehouses


4
on top of the fields that once produced cabbage, lettuce, and other vegetables. Right next
to these complexes are large-scale single and multi family developments that are
currently under construction. In a short time, these could double and even triple the
present population of the city. In addition, the middle of Cascade Valley has become a
commercial corridor bordering Interstate 5. A multitude of car and recreational vehicle
dealerships, large-scale furniture stores, and a sizeable casino now stand where smaller
mom and pop businesses once thrived.
Because of these changes, the district is experiencing some growing pains. In a
nine-year time-span, 1998 to 2007, there has been an obvious shift in the make-up of the
student population (see Figures 1 and 2). The current trend is that the number of white
students is on the decline and the number of students of color is on the increase, as well
as free and reduced lunch rates (see Figure 3). Additionally, grade point average
statistics reveal the existence of an achievement gap between different ethnicities in the
school (see Figure 4). The end effect is that conversations at all levels in the district now
surround the changing needs of the student population and how to provide them with the
best opportunity to achieve in the classroom. This is especially true as the district
attempts to meet the demands of the state assessments as well as the federal mandates of
No Child Left Behind. This is where the partnership with SCLSR has been valuable. It
helped to focus the conversations around what it means to be a true learning organization
and the roles that people play in such a system (see Appendix A). In this setting, the core
business of schools is to design engaging academic work for students and lead them to
success in that work (Schlechty Center, 2009). Clearly defining the focus of the
organization allows for a better emphasis on helping students to be engaged in their
education. Prior to this partnership, people often called any attempts at change random
acts of staff development due to the fact that educational trends would come and go with
no staying power. However, the vision of student engagement has been in place for
several years and is gaining power across the district.




5
Asian
5%
Indian
4%
Black
3%
Hispanic
8%
White
80%


Figure 1. School District 1998 Demographics (OSPI 2007)




Asian
10%
Indian
3%
Pac.Island.
3%
Black
4%
Hispanic
14%
White
66%


Figure 2. School District 2007 Demographics (OSPI 2007)



6
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1998 2006

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

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
American
Indian
Asian Black Hispanic MultiRace Pacific
Islander
White

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

Activities Influencing This Project
One of the means utilized by the district to address some of the achievement
issues began in the winter of the 2006-2007 school year. At that time, district leaders put
a policy in place to increase student engagement through the emphasis on strategic lesson
design. The concept of Working on the Work (WOW) Academies was developed to
target teachers since lesson development is their responsibility. To get them to
participate, an incentive based model was used which provided them with two days of
time out of the classroom, access to a laptop computer, a protocol called Coaching for
Design (C4D) to provide a roadmap in the design, and a facilitator to guide them through


7
the process. The premise behind the C4D model is that traditionally, teachers have
employed a planning model when developing lessons and units of study. The problem is
that planning typically begins with an activity or content and asks the student to adapt
and fit that activity. Instead, C4D focuses on lesson design which begins with a hard to
teach or learn concept based upon student data (Washington Assessment of Student
Learning [WASL] scores, classroom based assessments, etc.). Using specific knowledge
about the students, lessons are built around their needs, motives, and values so that the
hard to teach or learn concept can be addressed in a more engaging manner. As an
additional piece to the policy, a communities of practice approach was implemented so
that the lesson design could be done in teams. This concept will be explored in greater
detail in chapter 2. Communities of practice refers to the idea that informal teams that
share common interests and passions can come together in order to solve problems. In
the case of this policy, the creation of these teams was left up to the teachers so that those
individuals interested in focusing on a particular area of student achievement could work
together toward a common goal. Since the implementation of this policy, Dr. Steve
McCammon (2008), declared that, our approach toward NCLB, which in most districts
is considered No Child Left Behind but in our district is widely referred to as No
Concept Left Behind.
Shortly after the implementation of the WOW Academies, the faculty and
administration at Cascade Valley High School began to have conversations surrounding
diversity and the changing demographics of the school. The purpose of these
conversations was to determine how the changes to the school would influence the nature
of teaching and learning in the classroom. During this time, it was determined that it
would be beneficial to gather student input on the issues of diversity within the school.
As a result, the staff selected five students of diverse backgrounds to participate in a
diversity summit sponsored by the local Educational Service District. Upon their return
from this event, the students began to talk with the administration about several negative
school situations related to diversity that they either experienced themselves, witnessed
first-hand, or had relayed to them by friends. They admitted that these events were never
reported to staff at the school.


8
It was at this time that the summit students and the Cascade Valley administration
decided the faculty needed to hear about these issues so that everyone had a better grasp
of what students of diverse backgrounds were experiencing on the campus. A fishbowl
activity was designed where the summit students served as a focus group during a general
faculty meeting. In this activity, the staff sat in a large circle surrounding the small group
of summit students. One faculty member served as a facilitator of the conversation with
the students. The entire faculty was to remain silent and listen as the facilitator asked
questions regarding experiences at the school that the students experienced. Each student
had an opportunity to share their thoughts to the large group.
Following the fishbowl activity, the students were excused allowing the faculty
time to reflect upon what they had heard. Overall the reaction by the faculty was one of
shock toward what the students had relayed. It was certainly contrary to their beliefs as
to how all students were treated at the school. As a result, the students were invited back
at a later faculty meeting to identify one area of focus related to diversity that could be
addressed by the school. Through a process of elimination, the combined group elected
to focus on the topic of words that hurt. With this hard to teach concept in mind, the
summit students and a select group of teachers participated in a WOW Academy so they
could use the C4D process to design a lesson for the entire student body. Over a two-day
span of time, the group created a lesson surrounding a video that they scripted and
produced using the video productions department at the school. The end result was a
virtual assembly where teachers lead students through a guided discussion on the effect
of word choice in a culturally diverse setting.
Concurrent with the fishbowl activity that was underway, administrators in the
district were having conversations with a large computer software company regarding the
work that was happening in the district. In the midst of that conversation, it was revealed
that prior to this company producing and distributing a product to customers, that they
conduct a series of focus groups. The purpose of these groups is to solicit customer
needs and desires when it comes to the product. The philosophy behind this way of
doing business was very clear get to know your customer. Interestingly enough, this
philosophy was very similar to the work being done in the Cascade Valley School


9
District. As mentioned above, the C4D protocol helps teachers to design lessons but only
after they have a chance to really know their customers, the students.
The experience of listening to students voicing their concerns over issues in the
school in a controlled setting resulted in an end product that was tailor made to the
students at Cascade Valley High School and appropriate to their needs as a group. With
that in mind as well as the conversations that occurred with the software company.
Cascade Valley administrators began to see the potential of using student voice to
influence outcomes directly related to teaching and learning. Starting with the 2008-2009
school year, Cascade Valley system leaders began the push toward making student voice
a major focus in the conversations surrounding engagement. As a result, a new
component was added to the lesson design policy. As part of the student data collection
process used prior to the lesson design, teams from Cascade Valley High School began to
pilot student focus groups as a means of gathering additional information. The emphasis
is on questioning students about how they process information related to the content. The
goal is to use this information in tailoring lessons that will make the hard to teach
concepts more manageable. It is also meant to strengthen the teacher-student relationship
through the creation of a process whereby teachers listen to student experiences, and
students have the opportunity to speak. In the end it is the hope is that both of these goals
will lead to greater student engagement in the classroom.
Literature Influencing This Project
Three major issues have emerged that contribute to the need for educators to look
at student voice within the context of engagement. The first of which is the mandates
surrounding No Child Left Behind and its focus on standards and assessment. This
policy has saturated public school classrooms with strict educational edicts which all
students and teachers are required to meet or exceed. A visit to the Education World
(2008) Web site reveals that the political and educational communities have created
pages and pages of standards to cover almost every conceivable function in our schools.
In all there exist 12 detailed sets of national standards around the various school
disciplines (i.e., fine arts, language arts, and mathematics). Combined with the


10
exhaustive record of individual state standards (which often overlap or conflict with the
national standards) and local standards that emphasize graduation and behavior, it all
becomes hard to comprehend and problematic to manage.
Nevertheless, in this era of accountability, it has become the job of educators to
uphold these standards and deliver them to students. Then students are given a barrage of
assessments to ensure that the educators are doing their jobs correctly and that the
students are learning what is deemed essential by the agencies responsible for developing
the standards. Kohn (2000) summarized this situation in the following manner:
The top-down, heavy-handed "Tougher Standards" movement has taken
over many schools, with full support of business groups, politicians, and
many journalists. Primary opponents are classroom teachers and parents.
Raising standards translates into higher scores on poorly designed tests.

Unfortunately, what is often missing from this movement is that standards are not alone
in addressing the needs of students in the educational setting. In order to facilitate
learning, students must have more than just a decree or raised bar that they must jump
over. Students must be personally connected with the material so that they have a reason
to want to meet the standards placed in their path.
To make such a decision to comply with the institution of schooling, the
young person has to have some personal connection to the school, a stake
in what the school is perceived to offer, and a sense of the worthwhileness
of the schooling experience. The young person has to decide to comply
with the school experience and school staff, rather than reject and resist
them. The starting point for facilitating such decision making by young
people is likely to be when the school, its teachers, and leaders reach out
to such children, move to meet them rather than expecting them to adjust
to the entrenched school and teacher paradigms, and attempt to engage
them in relevant and interesting school experiences in which they can
recognize themselves, their parents, and their neighbours. (Angus, 2006,
p. 370)


11

In other words, the act of establishing a standard does not address whether it is relevant to
the student or whether they are engaged in the process of learning said standard.
The second issue to emerge which creates the need to focus on student voice and
engagement is the technological revolution that has exploded across the globe. Today the
proliferation of personal cell phones and electronic music devices permeates the culture.
The same could be said for a trip to the homes of our students. Personal computers have
become one of the centerpieces of the family dynamic. With the Internet, e-mail, texting,
instant messaging, Myspace, and Facebook to name a few, students have the ability to
amass huge quantities of personal contacts or friends, as well as access to infinite
amounts of information.
A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a
singularity an event which changes things so fundamentally that there
is absolutely no going back. This so-called singularity is the arrival and
rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th
century. (Prensky, 2001, p. 1)

It is evident that these digital natives are being affected by the changing world around
them.
Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to
parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text
rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They
function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and
frequent rewards. (Prensky, p. 2)

This access to technology has caused teachers to struggle more with the traditional role as
deliverers of information. Since many students have this information at their fingertips,
they become less patient with sitting in rows performing one task at a time. And as
students continue to increase their network of friends, they are less likely to turn to
adults for the answers and direction. The bottom line is that this generation of learners


12
processes information differently from the generation beforethe ones that are creating
the standards and delivering the lessons in the classroom. It is here that student voice
becomes a crucial step in understanding and acting upon this difference.
Like those in charge of the health care and legal systems, educators think
that we know what education is and should be. Because we have lived
longer and have a fuller history to look back upon, we certainly know
more about the world as it has been thus far. But we do not know more
than students living at the dawn of the 21st century about what it means to
be a student in the modern world and what it might mean to be an adult in
the future. To learn those things, we need to embrace more fully the work
of authorizing students' perspectives in conversations about schooling and
reform--to move toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Because
of who they are, what they know, and how they are positioned, students
must be recognized as having knowledge essential to the development of
sound educational policies and practices. (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 12)

To address both issues mentioned above, educators must redefine the role of the student
and the overall scheme of the learning process. As far as the student is concerned, their
place in the system is much like that of an indentured volunteer. Schlechty (2001)
suggested that while their attendance is mandatory, the effort and attention they give to
the tasks at hand is dependent upon the level of engagement students have with the
material and what it means in their life. He also described the contemporary student as a
customer of quality schoolwork much like a consumer who shops a store based upon
the value of the product that is offered. These concepts of student as volunteer and
customer are somewhat radical in the education world where the traditional view of the
student is one of empty vessel to be filled or even inmate in the prison.
A change in the students role, necessitates a change in the teachers role.
Schlechty (Schlechty Center, 2008) described this as a shift towards a leader and
designer of engaging work for kids rather than the traditional role of performer,
presenter, or diagnostician. He continued to point out that the work they provide to


13
students is one of the only things that they have complete control over when it comes to
their job. They do not control which students are assigned to their classroom, the
previous knowledge these students bring with them, the standards that are created by
legislators, or the bell schedule of the school. Brewer and Fager (2000) pointed out that
teachers can influence student motivation; that certain practices do work to increase time
spent on task; and that there are ways to make assigned work more engaging and more
effective for students at all levels. With that in mind, it would make sense that a
teachers best use of time and energy is in improving the quality of the work given to
students. As far as this is concerned, Wasserstein (1995) drew five conclusions for
teachers to consider when creating work for students: (a) students of different abilities
and backgrounds crave doing important work, (b) passive learning is not engaging, (c)
hard work does not turn students away, but busywork destroys them; (d) every student
deserves the opportunity to be reflective and self-monitoring, and (e) self-esteem is
enhanced when [students] accomplish something [they] thought impossible. One
potential method for creating this environment comes from Hidi (1990) who discussed
the concept of situational interest. This is where a teacher generates conditions and/or
stimuli in the classroom that focus attention to a particular topic or concept. She argued
that this can play an important role in learning, especially when students do not have
pre-existing individual interests in academic activities, content areas, or topics which
described most of our students relative to our core academic disciplines. Additionally,
she suggested that the utilization of this method could make a significant contribution to
the motivation of academically unmotivated children.
The third issue related to engagement and student voice comes in the increased
levels of student dissatisfaction that are emerging across the country. Newmann (1992)
suggested that,
Engagement involves psychological investment in learning,
comprehending, or mastering knowledge, skills, and crafts, not simply a
commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high
performance such as grades or social approval. Students may complete
academic work and perform well without being engaged in the mastery of


14
a topic, skill, or craft. If fact, a significant body of research indicates that
students invest much of their energy in performing rituals, procedures, and
routines without developing substantive understanding. (p. 12)

In fact, data from 2003 indicated that 3.5 million youth and young adults ages 1625
years old had not earned a high school diploma and were not currently enrolled in school.
Additionally, since peaking at 77.1% in 1969, high school completion rates had declined
to estimates as low as 66.1% by 2000 (Barton, 2004). Combined with 2006 data that
suggests that 50% of our students are bored every day in high school (Yazzie-Mintz,
2006), it is apparent that there is an alarming trend happening in American education.
Interestingly enough though, of those student who indicated they were bored, close to
75% of the students cared about their school (Yazzie-Mintz). This suggests that there are
different types of engagement that occur in the school that are influenced by the social
context and the ways in which individuals process their environment (Furrer, Skinner,
Marchand, & Kindermann, 2006). These differences include cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional engagement; each of which lead to the academic, social, and emotional success
or lack thereof for students.
One possible means to address these different levels of engagement is the use of
student voice. Three studies in this emanating from the United States, Canada, and
England involved educators bringing students into the school reform process to seek their
opinions as to how best to carry out change. The Manitoba School Improvement
Program (MSIP) in Manitoba, Canada and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative
(BASRC) in California both found that students improved academically when teachers
construct their classrooms in ways that value student voice-especially when students are
given the power to work with their teachers to improve curriculum and instruction
(Mitra, 2004, p. 653). More specifically, the MSIP found a correlation between an
increase in student voice in the school culture and an increase in school attachment
(Mitra, p. 653). These studies also uncovered that the effects of the student voice
activities extended beyond the classroom.



15
In some schools parents can be an active barrier to change as they fear
what they consider to be experimentation on their children. But when
their children talk to them about their experience of schooling, and parents
really hear, there can be far more openness to considering alternative
practices. (Levin, 2000, p. 160)

In regards to the BASRC, students were given the opportunity to serve on Student
Forums that would provide educators with useful information about the classroom.
Student Forum members served as "experts" of the classroom experience
in a variety of activities. They provided teachers feedback on how students
might receive new pedagogical strategies and materials through
participation in teacher professional development sessions, such as a
training on developing standards-based curricular units. Throughout the
training sessions, they shared with teachers how they would receive the
new lessons being developed and suggested some ideas for how to make
the lessons more applicable to students' needs and interests. (Mitra, 2003,
p. 293)

In the third study, beginning teachers in England were trained on a new approach
for the classroom called student consultation. Rudduck (2007) described this as:
. . . seeking advice from students about possible new initiatives; inviting
comment on ways of solving problems, particularly about behaviours that
affect the teachers right to teach and the students right to learn; and
inviting evaluative comment on school policy or classroom practice.
Consultation is a way of hearing what young people think within a
framework of collaborative commitment to school reform. (p. 590)

The benefit of this system is that student consultation helps teachers develop a
practical agenda for themselves, while at the same time providing for stronger self-
esteem for students.


16
Overall, the literature points to the following conclusions around the use of
student voice in the educational setting:
Engaged students are central to lasting school improvement. The reality is that
most schools are not organized in a manner that will allow for students to be active
participants in the discussions on school improvement. In both the MSIP and BASRC
examples mentioned above, structures were changed over periods of time at both the
school and classroom levels to bring students into the conversation about learning. What
was discovered was that this change helped to re-engage alienated students by providing
them with a stronger sense of ownership in their schools (Mitra, 2003, p. 290). It also
provided students with a sense of belonging which implies an active engagement with
the organization (Levin, 2000, p. 164). Overall, increasing student voice has been
found to improve student learning, especially when student voice is linked to changing
curriculum and instruction (Oldfather, 1995, p. 136).
Teachers attitudes can be changed through student voice. In order to move
students to a level of engagement that will provide them with ownership and belonging in
the school setting, teachers must be convinced that student voice has benefits not only for
students, but for themselves as well. As with Cascade Valleys fishbowl activity, the
studies mentioned above found that having students involved in the conversations on
learning did change the way teachers reacted to forms of information.
. . . data from students had a powerful influence on the willingness of
teachers to consider real change. Many teachers were quite able to reject
external research as a basis for change, and even to reject the experience
of other schools. But when surveys of students in their own school showed
significant levels of boredom or disaffection, teachers found this evidence
compelling. (Levin, 2000, p. 159)

In addition, the physical presence of students at gatherings influenced the way many
teachers behaved with each other and how they interacted.
J ust having students present in the room changed the tenor of meetings.
Resistant teachers particularly were less likely to engage in unprofessional


17
behaviors such as completing crossword puzzles during staff meetings or
openly showing hostility toward colleagues. (Mitra, 2007, p. 734)

The end result is that many teachers reported the need for a more cooperative relationship
between adults and students. They discovered that,
Teachers cannot create new roles and realities without the support and
encouragement of their students: students cannot construct more
imaginative and fulfilling realities of learning without a reciprocal
engagement with their teachers. We need each other to be and become
ourselves, to be and become both learners and teachers of each other
together. (Fielding, 2001, p. 108)
End Product
The overall goal of this project is to guide the future use of student voice activities
as a means of increasing engagement in the Cascade Valley School District. It is hoped
that by the end of the study, conclusions can be drawn around this process and the
methods used to incorporate student voice into the educational setting. These
conclusions will inform the future adaptations of WOW Academies and the structure of
the C4D protocol. Since this is the primary means of increasing student achievement in
the district, the entire school system will benefit from any potential changes. More
specifically, it will lead to the construction of a Student Voice Initiative Web site
intended for use by staff, students, and parents in the greater Cascade Valley community.
This Web site will serve as a guide for teachers to create proposals around hard to teach
concepts that they wish to bring to the WOW Academy setting. The Web site will also
house research around student voice, engagement, and communities of practice so that it
can help guide teacher practice.



18
CHAPTER 2. INQUIRY DESIGN
The C4D Proposal
As mentioned earlier, the C4D protocol emphasizes the use of lesson design
around student needs and interests. This is in contrast to the traditional lesson
development process used by teachers which emphasizes planning and creating activities
based around the subject matter. The tool was adopted in the Cascade Valley School
District during the winter of the 2006-2007 school year. From that time until the fall of
2008, several teams of teachers were able to experience the protocol consisting of several
steps intended to assist with the design process. These steps included (see Figure 5):
1. School/classroom data. This step involves the location and collection of
various forms of data that exist in the school. This could include WASL
scores, other achievement test scores such as SAT/ACT, and Classroom Based
Assessments.
2. Identification of hard to teach and/or learn concepts. This step involves
mining the data from the previous step for obvious indicators of student
difficulty. These indicators point to concepts that teachers have problems
teaching or that students have problems learning.
3. Specific student data. Teachers are asked in this step to identify students
inside their own classrooms that are struggling with the concepts. They are
asked to describe the characteristics of these students including their previous
grades, their interests, and needs.
4. Coaching: A facilitator intervenes during this step to make sure that the
teaching team has a good grasp of the information surrounding their students.
5. Lesson design. Armed with the knowledge from the previous steps, teachers
can then go and design lessons that are specific to their students.
6. Lesson delivery. This step is back in the classroom where the teacher, or
teachers, present the lessons designed.


19
7. Lesson assessment. This step involves the assessment of the students that
takes place after the lesson presentation to see if there is improvement in the
students understanding of the concept(s).
8. Lesson evaluation. This step involves the teacher evaluating whether the
lesson met the intended outcome. This information can be used as data back
in the beginning steps thus creating a cyclical process for lesson design.



School/Classroom
Data
(WASL,ClassroomBased
Assessments,SAT/ACT)
IdentificationofHard
toTeachand/orLearn
Concepts
SpecificStudentData
(Previousgrades,readinglevel,interestareas.)
Coaching
(Workingwitha
facilitatortoblend
specificstudentdata
withhardtoteach
and/orlearnconcepts)
LessonDesign
LessonDelivery
Student
Assessment


Figure 5. School District Lesson Design Policy

The Student Voice Pilot Project
Starting in the fall of 2008, the staff at Cascade Valley High School began a pilot
project which created additional steps in order to utilize student voice as a part of the
protocol. These steps included (see Figure 6):


20
1. Target Group. This step requires staff to identify a specific student target
group experiencing difficulty with the hard to teach or learn concept. In many
cases this group is determined by test scores or other classroom based
experiences.
2. Target Questions. This step involves the creation of questions to be directed
toward studentsspecifically the members of the target group mentioned
above. The intention of these questions is to find out why students find
concepts difficult or to determine how they think and learn.
3. WOW Team. This step involves the identification of staff members who are
interested in improving student achievement in the hard to teach and learn
concept area.

Following these steps, a critical piece to the student voice process was addedstudent
focus groups. In theory, the use of focus groups would allow the WOW Team to meet
with members of the student target group with the intent of learning more about the
intricacies of the modern day K-12 student. The WOW Team members were charged
with conducting the focus groups and asking the questions that were developed in the
previous step. It was also their role to evaluate the student responses in order to assist
with the next steps in the lesson design process. The goal of these additional steps was to
solicit student voice as one aspect of increasing the knowledge that teachers have
regarding their students. The hope was that this information would be included in the
lesson design process so that the final lesson outcome better engages students in the
classroom.




21

School/Classroom
Data
(WASL,ClassroomBased
Assessments,SAT/ACT)
IdentificationofHard
toTeachand/orLearn
Concepts
SpecificStudentData
(Previousgrades,readinglevel,interestareas.)
Coaching
(Workingwitha
facilitatortoblend
specificstudentdata
withhardtoteach
and/orlearnconcepts)
LessonDesign
LessonDelivery
Student
Assessment
SpecificTargetGroup
StudentFocusGroups
TargetQuestions WOWTeam


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



Framing the Problem of Practice
Overall, this study attempts to address a question of system level leadership which
states: How can a learning organization create the capacity for student voice to
influence teacher practice around lesson design so that the end result is an increase in
student engagement and overall achievement? In order to answer this question, two sub
questions must be discussed in relation to student voice:
Subquestion 1. If one of the goals of this study is to influence teacher practice,
how does this process contribute to their professional and social needs resulting in a


22
greater investment in their roles as designers of engaging work for students? In other
words, how does this process increase the engagement levels of teachers so that it
influences them to change their practice around lesson design? For the most part, in
order for teachers to feel successful in their jobs, they need to have a certain level of
professional and social satisfaction. On the professional side, this may appear in the form
of administrative support, collegial dialogue, and systems and tools that will aide them in
completing their job. Socially, teachers need to be surrounded by colleagues that share
their interests and concerns. They also need to have positive interactions with the
students that are in their care on a daily basis. Unfortunately, in many schools, these
situations do not always exist. Over the years, teachers have acted in isolation inside the
classroom delivering content along with diagnosing and taking corrective actions when
necessary around certain lessons. The act of collaborating with other teachers on a
concept while soliciting student input can be quite foreign. In other situations, they are
forced to work in teams with people that do not share common interests or desires
concerning the future of students. Either way, this can leave teachers in a professional
and social void.
In the Cascade Valley School District, WOW Academies operate on the basis of
the communities of practice theory. For that reason this study will use this theory as a
lens in order to draw conclusions on the questions above.
Communities of practice are groups of people informally bound by shared
expertise and passion for joint enterprise. In organizations that value
knowledge, they can help drive strategy, solve problems quickly, transfer
best practices, develop professional skills, and help recruit and retain
talented employees. (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 139)

Communities of practice differ from other organizational forms such as formal work
groups, project teams, and networks because they are informal and have the ability to set
their own agenda as well as leadership structure. In Cascade Valley, informal teams with
a common goal of improving student achievement around a concept could apply to


23
become part of a WOW Academy. This left the team formation, the direction of the
team, and the leadership inside the team entirely up to the members.
Three key components make up the foundation of the Communities of Practice
theory. Each plays a role in the WOW Academies and the pilot project involving the
student focus groups.
1. Participation. This involves the make-up of the team that comes together and
the work they do as a team in arriving at a shared meaning and understanding.
It can refer to an individuals involvement in the development of questions,
interactions with students in the focus group, observational records/data
collection, and personal conclusions drawn from the data.
2. Negotiation of Meaning. Negotiation of meaning refers to the means by
which change turns into practice. It relates to the intersection of the
interactions among the people in learning communities (participation) and the
resulting understandings (reifications) (Coburn & Stein, 2006). Negotiation
of meaning is what happens during the participation process which leads to
greater common knowledge and similar practice. In the case of the pilot
project, it can involve the mining of the data collected, conversations about
the focus group process, and conversations about the data that lead to team
meaning.
3. Reification. Reification is the substance that is created as part of the meaning-
making. It is not only the hands-on tangible materials; it is also common
ideas and concepts that emerge as a result of the negotiation process.
Reifications emerge from social processes and provide a concrete
representation of the processes that produced them by capturing and
embodying experience in fixed form (Coburn & Stein, p. 29). In the case of
the pilot project, it involves the things that are produced that demonstrate
evidence of a change in teacher practice around lesson design and engaging
work for students.



24
Overall, if the use of Communities of Practice provides teachers with the necessary
professional and social support, then they will have a greater investment in the process.
This in turn will result in a more serious look at the hard to teach/learn concepts and a
greater desire to design work for students. In other words, the potential is there to
increase the engagement of teachers in their work. If teachers are not engaged in the
process, then the hopes of them producing work that is engaging for students is quite
slim.
Subquestion 2. If the overall goal of this study is to increase student
achievement, how does this process contribute to satisfying their academic and social
needs, resulting in a greater investment in their educational setting? J ust like teachers,
students also have needs in the education setting. For the most part, their needs can be
summed up in the academic and social realms. Academically, students need to be
challenged with relevant curriculum that is age and time appropriate. As volunteers in
the system, they pick and choose from the menu that is put in front of them by teachers
and make decisions as to what they are able and willing to accomplish. Socially
speaking, they need to interact with their peers while at the same time build strong
relationships with the adults that are in charge of their education.
Unfortunately for many students, one or both of these needs are not met in the
educational setting. What is most troubling is that those students who struggle
academically or socially-emotionally all to often are students of color, second language
learners, or students of poverty; the voices of these students are often muted or even
silenced in most schools (Campbell, 2009, p. 19). As a result, we have an inequitable
situation that creates higher drop-out rates for minority students as well as the
achievement gap that exists in our public schools across the nation. Rather than devote
time to the students and their individual or group needs, fault for the failure is often
attached to the students that are struggling. The term for this action is called
pathologizing which refers to:
. . . a process of treating differences as deficits, a process that locates the
responsibility for school success in the lived experiences of children
(home life, home culture, SES) rather than situating responsibility in the


25
education system itself. In large part because educators implicitly assign
blame for school failure to children and to their families, many students
come to believe they are incapable of high-level academic performance.
(Shields, 2004, p. 112)

Whether this occurs in open public view through policies or procedures that are
discriminatory in nature or through hidden means with beliefs and practices of the people
in the system, the results are the same in that equity is not achieved. Going back to the
question at hand, if we seek higher levels of achievement through engagement and
investment on the part of students, then equity must be a goal and a lens by which this
study draws conclusions. In other words, does the process of C4D and student voice
attempt create an equitable situation for students?
So then what is equity and how does it apply to a school system? Before
providing a definition, Kahle (2004) argued that equity has three dimensions. The first
refers to the resources that are available to communities and the families that reside in
that community. The second dimension looks at the systems educational plan and
practices. This refers to the quality of the curriculum and the preparation of the adults in
that system to deliver this curriculum. It also has to do with how students are treated in
the various subgroups and whether teachers and administrators hold different goals for
specific subgroups as opposed to others in the system. The final dimension of equity is
the outcomes for students and whether different outcomes exist for the various
subgroups. Using these three dimensions, we can define an equitable system as one in
which identifiable subgroups of people do not experience systemic discrimination in
process, in opportunities, or in negative outcomes without an ethically sufficient reason
(p. 12). To go even deeper, the system is:
one in which all children have the opportunity to achieve to their fullest
potential or to the levels specified in the systems performance standards;
one that is committed through its allocation of resources to the equitable
achievement of all culture and gender based student populations;


26
one in which participation of diverse groups, particularly those groups
traditionally under-represented in the system, is expected and facilitated;
one that is accessible; for example, sensitivity to individual variation is
considered; and
one that has policies and procedures established and followed for distributing
and utilizing resources in ways that narrow any identified differences between
subgroups. (pp. 12-13)
My Location within the Project
In addition to being the primary researcher in this project, I have also served a
role within the Cascade Valley School District in carrying out the direction set forth by
the system leaders. As Principal of Cascade Valley High School, it has been my job over
the last two years to help assist teams from my building in their preparations to attend the
WOW Academies. This means that I have been facilitating conversations so that teachers
will be organized to get maximum benefit from the process. These conversations include
the concept(s) that they choose to bring to the C4D process, identifying the target group
of students they feel would benefit from this work, selecting students from the target
population to make-up the focus group, and designing the questions they ask students
inside the focus group. I have also been an observer during the WOW Academies as the
teacher teams work to design lessons.
During the course of the study, my duties did not change in relation to the district
philosophy of WOW Academies and the focus on hard to teach and learn concepts. The
only difference was my observations of the process in regards to how teams used the
student voice information as they proceeded with the protocol. I also directed the data
gathering following the WOW Academies for use in determining the next course action
for my own school as well as the district.
As far as others involved in this study from inside the district, the Superintendent
and WOW Coordinator have been instrumental in setting the vision for the district in
regards to the use of student voice, developing the process by which the C4D protocol
could be utilized, selecting the teams to participate in the WOW Academies, and


27
allocating resources for the WOW teams to meet outside the classroom. Additionally, I
have relied on teacher collaborators to volunteer to work on hard to teach concepts and
developing questions for the student focus groups. Finally, students were also
collaborators through their willingness to participate in the focus groups.



28
CHAPTER 3. METHODS
Type of Study
This study was qualitative in nature since the primary means by which data was
collected was through observations and interviews. Also, due to my position in the
district and the fact that the goal of the study is to inform system leaders about the future
use of student voice in this setting, action research was chosen methodology. In addition
to being an appropriate means of learning from activities and contributing to the
collective knowledge in the district, action research is based on principles of
collaboration, democratic participation, and social justice and empowerment. These are
the same principles that undergird meaningful student voice efforts. (Campbell, 2009, p.
19). Thus, this method is a solid fit for this particular study.
Boundaries
As mentioned in chapter 1, the work involving the C4D protocol began during the
2006-2007 school year. However, the timeframe for this particular study begins later in
time and encompasses the WOW Academies and interviews of participants including
high school staff and students. The first Academy began in October of 2008 and the final
one occurred in March of 2009 (see Table 1). All together, this study encompassed work
done a total of 8 different teams, each attempting to tackle a hard to teach and/or learn
concept. These concepts include:
1. English art of commentary/analysis in student writing.
2. Math/English deciphering math word problems.
3. World Languages fluency issues.
4. Social Studies research techniques and citations.
5. Career and Technical Education critical thinking skills.
6. Video Productions writing process in relation to script creation.
7. Social Studies economic systems.
8. Social Studies primary and secondary sources.


29
Work that led up to these academies included staff development during the high school
summer staff retreat, creation of teams within school, prioritization of concepts to bring
to the academies, potential questions to ask students at the beginning of the C4D process,
and the selection of teams to attend academies.

Table 1. Timeline of Study

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Activities 2008 2009

Pre-WOW Academy Meetings




WOW Academy I




WOW Academy II

WOW Academy III

WOW Academy IV/V

WOW Academy VI/VII

WOW Academy VIII

Teacher Interviews

Administrator Interviews

Student Interviews


Participants
The participants in the WOW Academies included both staff and students from
the high school. The total number of staff included 30 individuals. They comprised a
wide range of experience and represented several different content areas in the school
(see Figures 7, 8, and 9). Since the philosophy in the district is based upon a
Communities of Practice theory when it comes to the WOW Academies, staff members
created their own teams and decided upon the concepts that needed attention. They then


30
wrote proposals to be reviewed by the district WOW Coordinator and the Superintendent
in hopes that they would be selected to participate.



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




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



31

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


As far as student participation in the WOW Academies is concerned, 38 students
took part in the focus groups as a part of this process. The represented all age groups in
the school grades 10 through 12 (see Figure 10). Out of the 38 students, 52% were male
and 48% females. Additionally, the students also reflected the same ethnic demographic
date as shown in Figure 2 in chapter 1 (see Table 2). While teachers in this activity self-
selected, students came to the process in a different manner. Once the teacher teams
were formed and the target group of students had been identified, then came the task of
narrowing down that group to a manageable number for the student focus groups. The
goal was to have between 5-7 students per focus group. As a result, during the course of
the study students were selected to the focus groups in one of two ways. The first way
and the one that was used most frequently in 7 of the 8 WOW Academies involved a
random selection. For each WOW Academy using this method, all members of the target
group were imported into an Excel spreadsheet and assigned a number. Then, using a
random integer generator (http://www.graphpad.com), numbers were randomly selected.
The students who were assigned those numbers were then brought into a room together,
given an introduction to focus groups, and given the opportunity to accept or decline the
invitation. Out of this process, 37 students were randomly drawn, 30 accepted the
opportunity to participate in the focus groups, and 7 withdrew. The second means by
which students were selected to participate in focus groups involved a more deliberate
selection of students. This occurred in 1 of the 8 WOW Academies during the course of


32
the study. Once again a target group was identified for the hard to teach and learn
concept. Then, the team of teachers participating in the WOW Academy hand selected
students that they knew from their class rosters fit within this target group. The idea
behind this was to look at students that did not provide significant feedback during the
school day. The WOW Team wanted to hear from this group so they could design
around them specifically. Using this process, 8 students were contacted to be a part of
this WOW Academy and all 8 participated.



Figure 10. Percentage of WOW Academy Student Participants by Ethnicity


Data Collection
Data collection for this study came in the form of personal observations and
interviews of the participants. As far as observations were concerned, these took place in
three different phases of the process:
Phase 1: Pre-Focus Group Meetings. These meetings took place prior to the
WOW Teams entering the WOW Academies. The make-up of the group
varied between all participants or one to two lead members. The
conversations in these meeting included the selection of the target group, the


33
methods by which students would be selected from the target group focus
group participation, question development, and the focus group protocol
(questioning strategies, note taking . . . ). These conversations ranged
between one half hour to one hour in length.
Phase 2: Focus Group Sessions. These sessions occurred during the actual
WOW Academies. All WOW Team members were in attendance as well as
the student participants. Observations in this setting focused on the flow of
the sessions, the teachers role in the focus groups, and the students level of
participation throughout the process.
Post-Focus Group Sessions. Following the focus group session, students were
dismissed leaving the WOW Team to wrestle with the information given to
them by the students. Observations here included their conversations
surrounding that process.

The second means of data collection came in the form of interviews following the WOW
Academies. These interviews were done in a focus group setting much like the work
done in the pilot project. Participants for these focus groups consisted of the WOW
Team members and the student focus groups. Their involvement was on a voluntary
basis. In all, a total of 14 teachers participated in 3 focus groups, and 13 students
participated in 3 focus groups. In addition, one administrative focus group was added
with individuals who assisted with the WOW Academies throughout the course of the
study. This group consisted of 2 participants.
Conducting all of these data collection focus groups was an outside facilitator.
Questions were prepared ahead of time and distributed to the participants prior to their
arrival to the focus group sessions (see Appendices B-D). These questions were crafted
toward drawing out their experiences during the WOW Academies. Time was also
allotted during the focus groups for individuals to write out some of their responses to the
questions. These responses were collected at the end of each session for review with the
other sources of data. Also, each focus group was recorded for review at a later date in
order to capture responses and important trends in the data.


34
For purposes of anonymity in the study, all participants in the data collection
process were provided with a special code so their responses would not be attributed back
to them when the results of the research became published. All observational notes as
well as information written through the interview process made use of these codes. The
codes themselves along with their corresponding names have been kept in a secure
location. Also, all student participants in the interview process were required to have
parental permission prior to the start of the data collection (see Appendices E and F).



35
CHAPTER 4. MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA
Personal Observations and the Focus Groups
For the most part, all of the comments and the behaviors exhibited by staff and
students during this study were positive toward the use of student voice as a part of the
lesson design process. That is not to say that everything went smoothly as far as the
planning and questioning phases were concerned. In fact, it was quite apparent that there
was a great deal of apprehension and nervousness on the part of staff in the beginning
stages. During the pre-meetings to develop questions, several people had difficulty
grasping the concept of how students would enter into the C4D protocol and how they
would be able to use the information they gathered from the kids. At the same time,
students also exhibited a level of uneasiness in the beginning stages at the prospects of
joining their teachers for a conversation about the classroom. However, once the WOW
Academy focus groups got underway, this anxiety on the part of both groups evaporated
and the conversation and transfer of information was able to occur. As a result of this
work, staff and students were able to discuss and write about their experiences at the end
of the study in the interview focus group settings. After a careful review of this data, it
becomes apparent that the results of the study can be categorized into three specific areas
which will be broken down and analyzed in greater detail. These areas include: the
preparation leading to the focus groups, the group process that occurred during and after
the focus groups, and the results of the interactions between the teachers and students.
Focus Group Preparation
In any important endeavor involving education, success or failure often depends
on the preparation that occurs prior to the event. This particular study was no different in
the fact that several comments were directed toward the work that happened or did not
happen in the beginning stages. Two areas of concern quickly emerged as pieces that
caused confusion or that needed further study. The first involved the questioning that
took place of the students in the WOW Academy focus groups. The second surrounded
the student selection process and how they came to be involved in the process.


36
Video Team Story:
Tim is a veteran teacher of 20 years all in the Cascade Valley School
District. He has taught a variety of subjects in that time but most recently
he has been able to work in his passion of video productions. The
program he has developed has had extremely wide success. Students
clamor to get into his classes so they can create episodes of the monthly
school new program or to work on their own pet projects to be shown at
the annual film festival. The program has also been recognized at the state
level with various awards. Needless to say, Tim has created a very
successful operation and is proud of the work his students produce.

However, as with any organization, there is always room for
improvement. Recently Tim has been frustrated with the means by which
his students are developing the stories behind the videos that they shoot.
The problem is that he sees students wasting time shooting and re-
shooting footage because they havent spent the time in the pre-production
phase. He knew that the area the students were having difficulty with was
in the script writing part of the development. The problem was that Tim
admittedly was not a writing teacher and did not know how to approach
this subject with his class. He knew that if he didnt do something soon,
his plans for the class would be put on hold because the videos that the
students were attempting to create were taking longer than anticipated due
to the constant re-shooting.

In an attempt to solve this problem, Tim decided to write a proposal for a
WOW Academy. His hard to teach and learn concept involved script
writing as part of the pre-production phase of the video development. He
included an English teacher, J ane, and another video teacher, Kevin,
to help him with this concept. While J ane had attended a WOW


37
Academy in the past prior to the student voice pilot project, this was going
to be a new experience for both Tim and Kevin.

In the days leading up to the WOW Academy, Tim had some pre-
Academy conversations with his administration in order to help identify
his target group of students and the questions he would use in the focus
groups. He decided that his target group would be current or former video
production students. Following that conversation, students were selected
at random from the target group and were prepped for the focus group
conversation. On the morning of the WOW Academy, the team gathered
to begin the process. They were introduced to the C4D protocol by the
district WOW Coordinator and then turned loose to begin the work.
However, it soon became evident that the team was not ready for the focus
groups to begin. They became nervous as they realized that they only had
a couple of questions written for the students. As a result, the team took
the next hour to break down the hard to teach and learn concept. Then
they enthusiastically collaborated on questions that would solicit the
necessary information from the students. During this time they were able
to receive assistance from the WOW Coordinator.

Once the questions were created, the students were brought in and the
focus group got underway. As it turned out, all five of the students
selected were current students in the video class. Three of the five were
beginning students. Following this session, the students were dismissed
and the team was able to analyze and discuss the data they recorded. One
of the major discoveries was that the students were unable to transfer the
writing skills they had learned in an English classroom for use in the video
productions setting. The team realized that the lesson that they would
design at the end of the C4D protocol would need to link the curriculum


38
that the students have experienced in the English classroom to video
productions.

In addition to analyzing the student data, the team also spent time
reflecting on the preparation needed prior to leading the focus groups.
Tim acknowledged that he struggled when it came time to create the
questions for the students because he didnt know how to structure them in
order to get the best results. He also recognized that there was very little
collaboration prior to the team coming together for the WOW Academy.
While the team felt that they had gathered good information from the
students, they realized that their initial preparatory work had been
insufficient for the work needing to be done, and that more extensive prep
was crucial to the success of the focus groups.

Since soliciting student voice through focus groups is a relatively new concept for most
teachers, the means by which to get students to provide helpful information in this setting
proved to be a difficult task. In order to make this happen, questions must be carefully
thought out and structured in a manner that will make the students feel comfortable
enough to share their thoughts and experiences. Since this is a crucial piece to bring forth
and encourage student voice, it would make sense that this step in the process deserves
significant attention prior to meeting with the focus groups. However, as in the case of
the video team mentioned above, not every group experienced success in this area. These
groups either spent a limited amount of time in question preparation or struggled in some
fashion to pull the questions together in a cohesive manner. In the interview focus
groups, several teachers shared some level of frustration at this step in the project.
It was a painful process [question development]; it was a good process but
it was difficult to scaffold the questions. (English Teacher)

A lot of people will ask yes or no questions where you should ask
why or how questions. It takes a while to get into that mode and if


39
you are not careful about it youre asking those questions yes or no to
confirm what you already think instead of letting the student come up with
the answer. (Social Studies Teacher)

It is interesting to note that it wasnt only the adults that mentioned questioning as a
difficult area in the focus groups. Students also brought up during their interviews that
this part of the process at times seemed to be disjointed and cumbersome.
The questions were a bit awkward at times. Sometimes it would seem that
the teachers didnt know what they were going to ask so it would slow
down the conversation. Other times it would seem that the questions did
not go in-depth enough. (12th Grade Student)

Some of the difficulty with the questioning appears to be contributed to the newness of
the activities related to student voice. The majority of the teacher participants were
unfamiliar with focus groups as to their format and purpose.
I was nervous going into this because I didnt know what to expect. I
didnt have a concept in my mind as to how the focus groups were going
to work even though we watched an example in a faculty meeting. I know
if I do this again I will be better prepared and will plan differently. (CTE
Teacher)

My second WOW Academy was much better. We were able to think
through the questions more because we had been through it once before.
The first time through was a little rough. Our questions were not very
good. (Social Studies Teacher)

Another area of difficulty in questioning came from an apparent lack of clarity on the part
of the teacher participants regarding the actual information they wanted to obtain from
the students. In pre-WOW Academy meetings with administrators, conversations
focused on moving away from content specific questions and instead, emphasizing


40
student processing related skills. This proved to be a difficult conversation since
secondary teachers and the courses they teach are typically content driven by nature.
However, those that ventured into this arena seemed to have some success.
When teachers have asked very specific questions related to content they
get very short limited answers. Where I have seen the most animation is
when the question has been about past experiences, something they could
hang their hat on. When the question could tap into their emotional
intelligence versus just some factual recall things, it seems like we get a
little more. (Administrator)

As it turns out, the conversations and observations involving the focus group
preparations were not limited issues of questioning. A second area that came up
repeatedly had to do with the process of student selection and readiness. Much of the
conversation hinged on the random versus the nonrandom selection methods. As
mentioned earlier, 7 of the 8 WOW Academy focus groups in the study used random
selection based upon the identification of their target group. The remaining WOW
Academy focus group used hand-picked students from the target group to participate. As
teachers spoke about the selection process it became apparent that the random nature was
of concern.
When it was first presented to us about the idea of student focus group that
was one of the problems that I had the fact that it was going to be random
to be honest. I thought that the focus group was going to be designed
where we got to take a look at the high end, the struggling students, and
not as many of the kids that dont care, we get a better voice as opposed to
just a random sample. (Social Studies Teacher)

The random scared me at first because I really wanted to hear from the
struggling student in with the successful student because I thought we
would get more of a voice. (Social Studies Teacher)



41
Due to the random nature of the selection process, not every group emerged with the
hoped for diversity in terms of the mix of students that would produce the necessary
information leading to lesson design phase. This lack of diversity was not necessarily
related to ethnicity but more to the ability levels of the students selected. Many of the
teachers were hoping for a broader range of skill levels which would then result in a
wider range of responses.
Some of the problems included that fact that there wasnt the variety [of
kids] that were needed to get the most out of the process. (English
Teacher)

Im not sure how the students were selected. I think it was random. I
would have liked to have more of a diverse representation of my students
so I could have a better sense of how my students were thinking as a
whole. (CTE Teacher)

Others voiced a certain approval for the random nature of these groups. In most
situations, they provided a wide range of students from which to draw several
perspectives.
I was in a group that did have a random group of students the non
successful with the successful. I was interested in hearing from that group
that is disengaged in a serious setting because I thought it was impressive
at how these kids in your classroom that are totally turned off but in a
serious setting were able to have a conversation. (English Teacher)

I think that maybe students that are struggling a little bit more in learning
should do it [participate in focus groups] because then teachers could find
out why they arent learning as well as they should be. (11th Grade
Student)



42
Additional areas of difficulty resulted from the anonymity of the focus groups prior to the
conversations. In many cases, the staff did not know and could not anticipate the specific
students that would be participating in the WOW Academy focus groups.
I know for my group we changed our questions at least 5-6 times. Then
when we saw our student group we changed them again looking
specifically at those kids and what their level was. (CTE Teacher)

On top of this it was very apparent that in some situations, the students that were
asked to participate did not have much of an idea as to the purpose of the WOW
Academy focus groups as well as their role in these meetings.
It seemed like there were a few kids that didnt have a clue as to why they
were there. Im not sure what they were told but they came in cold.
Unfortunately since I was new to the process, I struggled with filling in the
blanks. (Social Studies Teacher)

With experience in the Academy setting, one group seemed to work out some of
the issues mentioned above so that the process provided more information from students
thereby leading to a better outcome in the end.
Social Studies Team Story 1
Lee, Nick, Art, and Mark had all experienced at least one focus
group session involving students during the pilot project. Monica and
David joined the team for the final WOW Academy of the year as they
wrestled with the concept of citing sources for research. They were all
frustrated at their students work in this area and came together to try and
improve in this area. Having a more experienced group, they reflected on
the task at hand as well as the work they had done with focus groups in the
previous WOW Academies. During that time, they came to the
conclusion that while the previous focus groups provided great
information to tackle the hard to teach and learn concept, they did not get


43
what they considered to be a full representation of the target group. They
felt that a more representative group would provide even more information
that would help them when it came to the lesson design process.

With this in mind, they skipped the pre-Academy meetings with the
administration and instead spent time on looking at their individual class
rosters and hand-picking the students from the target group that would
provide the full representation they were looking for from the group. On
the morning of the Academy, they sent their list of students to the
administration and asked to have them pulled from class to attend the
focus group. At the scheduled time, those students arrived, were given a
brief introduction to the purpose of the meeting, and then asked a series of
questions related to the skills and experiences in the concept area of source
citation. David was selected to be the primary inquisitor during the
session and he read from a list of pre-determined questions. As the
students gave their responses, the remaining teachers in the group all
scribbled notes and in some cases threw out follow-up questions.

Following the session, the teachers sat and discussed what they had heard
and how this would influence the remainder of their work. Much of the
conversation centered on vocabulary related to the concept and how that
would have to play a part in their lesson design. Once their analysis was
complete, the team then went to work on lessons that would helps students
to better understand the concept. As they developed a rough draft, the
then pulled the students back to the table in order to give the less a dry
run. This time, Lee led the group through the initial lesson design in order
to solicit feedback. Again, students were asked questions about the design
and they provided their thoughts as to how this would help in the
classroom.



44
At the end of the second round of questioning, the teacher group discussed
how this format seemed to work better than the random selection of
students that occurred previously in the other WOW Academies. During
this discussion, they were able to point to each student in the focus group
and make reference to their overall contribution. This was something that
they could not do with other focus groups that they experienced. Overall,
they felt that this was a more favorable means of selecting the focus
groups.

While this group deviated from the selection process experienced from the other teams in
the pilot project, they still kept the same philosophy and structure that was consistent in
all of the WOW Academies. The group identified a hard to teach and learn concept, they
identified a target group, they developed questions, they conducted focus groups, and
they used the information from those focus groups in the lesson design process. The only
difference is that they took a different route in selecting students from the target group
which they believed would increase the student voice resulting in a better end product.
Group Processing
As mentioned earlier, the WOW Teams were based on the communities of
practice theory meaning that they came together based upon mutual interest and
familiarity. For the most part, they already had some degree of a working relationship
and knowledge of each others strengths and weaknesses. As they started to perform
their work in the Academies, this allowed them to move cohesively toward a common
goal which was to improve their teaching related to their chosen concept. That is not to
say that conflict did not arise. However this aspect was at a minimum and therefore they
could eliminate some of the early stages of group formation and instead concentrate on
the information provided by the students related to the concept. Consequently, two
critical developments emerged because of the information the teachers gained through
their interactions with the students. First, the information changed their perspective as to
the true nature of the concept that was giving students difficulty. Secondly, there was an


45
increase in the degree of the ownership the teachers had with the process, the concept,
and the students information.
Again, the C4D protocol begins with the identification of a hard to teach or hard
to learn concept. Using state and classroom student achievement data, teachers narrow
down the topics that they believe give students the most difficulty. Then they bring one
of those to the WOW Academy in hopes designing an engaging lesson or unit that will
help student achieve. However, through the interview focus groups, it became apparent
that the students provided teachers with information that gave them a different
perspective when it came to these concepts. After the students left and the teachers had
the opportunity to analyze the data, one of their powerful discoveries was that in many
situations, the original concept that the WOW Teams brought to the table was not the
concept that needed attention. Instead, it was other supporting skills or knowledge
related to the concept that was missing or with which the students were struggling.
With our department and our process we changed our focus on what we
wanted to do with our WOW Academy after the questions both times. In
other words, we went in with an idea of what we wanted to create a lesson
on, we had the focus group and the we came back and said that they are
really not interested in this right here, but they are interested in this over
here so lets generate our lesson for the over here and change the concept.
That was an interesting process because the year before we went in with a
hard to teach concept and then we built a lesson and brought it back.
(Social Studies Teacher)

The whole process flipped based on what the students wanted to learn. It
was an interesting change in the whole dynamic of the WOW proposal
because the students voice tended to flip the proposal. (Social Studies
Teacher)

Ours flipped too. We came in wanting to redesign a project we have in
our classes and ended up saying this is fine but we need to teach this


46
before we do this so we ended up creating a whole different lesson. It
came down to the fact that they liked the project we were doing, they just
didnt have the skill to complete it. (CTE Teacher)

Out of all of the groups that participated in the pilot project, the Social Studies Teams
probably had the most insight into this emerging theme. As mentioned in chapter 3, out
of the eight teams in the study, three were from the Social Studies department. Not only
that but in those three teams, three members participated in two of the Academies, and
one member participated in all three Academies. In observing them operating as a group,
it was interesting to note how the teams progressed with each passing Academy.
Social Studies Team Story 2:
At first, these team members were almost rigid when it came to the
concept they were going to attack. They also appeared to have a pre-
conceived notion as to the lesson they were going to design even without
the student input. However, as they gained experience into the process,
several things occurred:
1. In-depth questions. Instead of the simple yes, or no, questions, the
teams began to plan their questions out so that they would get better
responses from the students.
2. Target group selection. The teams began to see the value in being specific
as to who participated in the focus groups. What started out as random in
the beginning, turned to hand-picked students who were having difficulty
in the end.
3. Duration. The initial Social Studies team focus group was a relatively
quick venture lasting roughly thirty minutes in length. The final one lasted
for approximately ninety minutes due to the extended questions and
dialogue that occurred.
4. Observational notes. By the final WOW Academy, those not asking
questions were taking copious observation notes of the focus group


47
responses and body language. This was in stark contrast to the first group
that simply listened to the student responses.
5. Analysis - By the end, the teams were using their observational notes on a
more regular basis when it came to analyzing the student responses as
well as during the lesson design phase of the C4D process.

Finally the most important piece that materialized from these groups came
in the form of the teachers beliefs as to the nature of the hard to teach and
learn concept at the beginning of the process. Following the first Social
Studies WOW Academy, the teams began to relax their initial beliefs as to
the cause of the student difficulty related to the concept and allowed
student input through the focus groups to help identify the real problem.
As a result, the teams changed their initial concept in the middle of the
process and focused their efforts on designing lessons directed at
completely different concepts that were more appropriate to student
learning.

As a result of the WOW Academy focus groups, many of the WOW Teams
changed their focus and attacked different concepts that were more important to the
overall achievement of students. In addition to changing perspectives, it also appeared
that the students provided the teachers with important feedback. At least two of the
WOW Teams took the opportunity to have students return to the WOW Academy after
initial work had been done on the lesson design. It was here that they asked the students
to comment and provide feedback on this work before it received the finishing touches
and ended up in the classroom. One team that exemplified this work was the
Math/English team that came to the WOW Academy to work on strategies for attacking
math word or story problems.



48
Math/English Team Story:
J oe is a veteran math teacher of 22 years. He readily states that math
comes naturally to him. When he sees a problem either in equation or
word form, he knows immediately how to arrive at an answer. He realizes
that the majority of his students dont have this ability and often struggle
with problems in the textbook. This is especially true with the word
problems that occur on the state assessment. In looking at the scores
strands in this area for the current 10th grade class, he realizes that his
department needs to make some immediate corrections. J oe seeks out the
advice of Holly, a relatively new English teacher in the school who
doesnt care for math and struggles when it comes to solving equations.
They both come to the conclusion that the issue is more of a reading
comprehension issue rather than one of mathematical ability.
Unfortunately, J oe is not a reading teacher and doesnt have the
knowledge to assist kids in this area. So together, J oe and Holly write a
proposal around solving math word problems to be considered for a WOW
Academy. J oining them in this effort are Sid, an English teacher, and
Maggie, a brand new math teacher.

After the group identified their target group and devised some questions,
they were ready for their focus group. The students that were randomly
selected seemed eager to participate even though they really didnt enjoy
nor were they particularly good at math. Nevertheless, the focus group
went forward and the team was able to collect data. J oe indicated that the
focus group didnt really give him much insight into what the students
were thinking. Instead it confirmed what he already believed about how
students felt about word problems. However, the team proceeded to work
through the C4D protocol, using the student data to design lessons around
their hard to teach and learn concept. What they designed was a thinking
strategy that could be taught to students in an English classroom. This


49
strategy was to help students break down word problems into simple steps
which would allow them to create an equation out of the written message.
The only problem was that the team didnt know if the strategy would
work.

At this point, the team decided to bring the focus group back to the table and test
out the strategy. The first thing they did was to give a brief lesson on the steps in the
strategy. Then they let the students in the group have time to process what had been
presented. The teachers then asked for feedback into the design and then sat back and
listened as the students told them what they thought of the strategy. By the end of the
conversation, the teachers had changed the order of the steps, and added two additional
steps in order to meet the needs of the students. Then, once the strategy was in place, the
teachers gave the students a real world word problem involving cell phone rates and told
them to use the strategy to come up with an equation. The teachers then sat back once
again and watched the students in action. What they saw gave them encouragement and
satisfaction. The students started to work at a furious pace to not only come up with an
equation using the strategy, but they were also trying to solve the problem which was
something not required of them in this exercise. Without assistance from the teachers,
the students were working together, persevering when they ran into roadblocks, and
pushing to come up with an answer. In other words, they appeared to be engaged in the
process. In the end, the team had the opportunity to receive feedback beyond the normal
focus group experience that they could use to make a better product for the classroom.
Following this experience, the teachers noted in the interview focus groups that
this format allowed them to make adjustments based upon feedback from the students.
It is not just the initial voice that helped in this process but getting
feedback in the middle helped as well. (English Teacher)

Another group commented that they were also able to receive feedback that helped to
adjust the design prior to it going into the classroom.


50
One of the things [in the WOW Academy] was to try and get the kids to
analyze. So we had questions set up to ask them what critical thinking
means to them and what it meant to analyze. Contributions they made
were that they were able to give us their definitions of key words related to
critical thinking, such as summarize and analyze. I think it is very easy to
define summarization, every kid seems to know how to summarize, but
they dont know how to analyze and most dont know what that means. In
many cases, their definitions did not match my definitions. And so that
was a great contribution because I knew where they were coming from.
(CTE Teacher)

And, it appears that the feedback worked both ways as the students were able to gain
some valuable perspective about their teachers.
After a WOW Academy one of the students mentioned that she had no
idea that her teachers worked so hard to get things ready for us. I just
thought that there was a book and that someone just told them what to do.
(Administrator)

In addition to the group process helping to change the perspectives of the teacher
participants, it was also evident that their ownership of the process also changed. And, it
could be argued that with a change in ownership also brings a change in engagement
levels. One of the major goals of this project is to increase student engagement through
student voice activities. However, an increase in teacher engagement would be an
important piece to increasing student engagement. If teachers are truly engaged in their
students learning, the more effort they will place toward the lesson design process.
Through the interview focus groups and observations, it became clear that as time went
on, the teachers embraced the process of the student voice activities. Initially there were
some fears on the part of staff going into the WOW Academies. Most people in new
situations, experience some degree of hesitation, nervousness, and reluctance. For some,
the thought of placing control in the hands of students is threatening.


51
It is natural for us to feel a little threatened. We are giving up a bit of
control here and we are admitting that we dont know everything. That is
a different role. It is a much more collaborative role. (Administrator)

As the focus groups got underway and the conversations developed, teachers
indicated that their initial fears and pre-conceived notions about what would happen
quickly faded.
Having never done a WOW Academy before, I was a little intimidated
thinking about kids coming in. After doing it I would definitely do this
again. I learned a lot. It completely changed the way I do that
assignment. (CTE Teacher)

I was surprised about how much they did have to say and were willing to
give that information. (Social Studies Teacher)

In our particular group there were five students and I knew one of them.
The rest of them for whatever random reason they all came from [another
teachers] classes instead of mine and the one kid that came out of my
class I really did not want there. I really think I gained the most insight
from him because he has lots of other issues and so his perspective was
really valuable in what he was getting and what he wasnt getting about
the assignment. There were other kids that I didnt know that [another
teacher] said really stepped up and made comments that were surprising.
(CTE Teacher)

Actually hearing that they thought that this would work [the new lesson
design] and was useful was pretty neat. (Social Studies Teacher)

I thought that the focus group was really a good way to generate some
good dialogue from a kid that really wants to get it but doesnt or really


52
wants to be successful but just doesnt have that process down or
something is getting in the way. I think from the ones that I have watched,
those voices are starting to creep out and become a little louder and maybe
give some advice that is powerful. (Social Studies Teacher)

One of the more powerful comments came from an individual that had been an observer
in a good portion of the WOW Academy focus groups. She remarked at how quick
people were to make the transition to a new way of doing business and that while our
intended outcome was to increase engagement with students, this process had the effect
of increasing the engagement of staff as well.
At this point I would not be able to advocate secondary teachers designing
without the use of student voice. Ive seen it to be so powerful. At this
stage I dont know how powerful it has been on the students yet, I think
we have a ways to go with that to help them make a deeper connection,
but for the teachers to have that experience of listening has been really
huge to the point where I am seeing teachers tip in their chair and their
whole body language is leaning forward and they are writing copious
notes as the kids are talking. There is nothing more authentic than seeing
a teacher doing that. (Administrator)

These comments suggest that the group process helped to create a certain level of
ownership and engagement with the process and the information they received from the
students. Additionally, in reflecting on the team stories mentioned above, each group
took the work to a new level by taking ownership in a certain aspect of the process. In
Social Studies Team Story 1, the group took it upon themselves to change the way in
which students were selected to participate in the focus groups. This group along with
the team reflected in the Math/English Team Story, brought students back after the initial
meeting to look at sample lessons to receive feedback. In Social Studies Team Story 2,
the group realized that they missed the mark on the concept. Rather than just proceeding
ahead with their preconceived notions, they made a difficult adjustment and focused on a


53
new area of student need. Each of these groups went above and beyond their original
obligations of the project to make the process work for them and their students.
Results
One of the major themes to emerge as a result of this work centers on the notion
of empowerment. This idea refers to the transference of power from one individual or
group to another individual or group. In this case, the group that felt an increase in their
power was the students involved in the WOW Academies. However, just as the teachers
experiences some reluctance at the beginning, so too did the students when they realized
that they were going to be questioned by adults in small groups. At first they appeared
nervous and hesitant to immediately volunteer information. Once the WOW Academy
focus groups got underway, those fears appeared to quickly subside as students
responded to the teacher questions. During the interview focus groups, each student
indicated that if given the opportunity, they would participate again in the process. They
also felt as though they could share information even though their teachers were in the
room. Adults also commented that for the most part, the students were able to relax and
provide important information.
As the focus groups got started things were a little rough. I think the
smarter kids tended to dominate but as kids got familiar with the fact that
this was something they were going to participate in and as they got more
comfortable with the process and as the process got polished that is the
nice thing in seeing that struggling group feel comfortable enough to
speak out and explain why they are struggling. (Social Studies Teacher)

One thing I have noticed is that the kids are taking this very seriously and
they are not acting as we might fear. It is not a threatening thing to us as
teachers or adults. They seem really valued at being asked.
(Administrator)



54
All of our questions became personal. Most of the kids in our group had
two or three of us as their teachers going back to junior high. So they
were making a personal connection and relating the work to the teacher. It
was informative once we pushed them a little bit. (English Teacher)

Observational notes indicate that as students participated more in the focus groups that
their body language changed as well as their confidence in speaking to the adults. Their
responses to the interviews demonstrated that they felt this power because of the way the
adults treated them in process.
We all made contributions and voiced our opinions and you could tell that
the teachers were paying attention to what we were saying because just as
we were taking notes before, they were doing the same thing as we were
talking. And so it felt good and went both ways because they were paying
attention and we were paying attention to them. (11th Grade Student)

The teachers kept looking to us for feedback. The kept asking more
questions and said that what we were saying was really important. They
took a lot of notes. (10th Grade Student)

This shift also left an impression on the teachers as they noticed this shift in confidence
as things progressed.
The kids really do take this seriously. They come up with some thought
provoking responses to the questions. (English Teacher)

This empowers the student because they have some input and they care
and they know that the teachers care about what they say. (Math Teacher)

I hoped it would fill in some of my blind spots as far as what students are
actually thinking about, whats on their radar, what they need in order to
be not just engaged but to be prepared; what their skill levels are and what


55
skill they see as needing. Because sometimes I see student and I have
assumptions as to what they might need or what level they might be at but
I need to listen to them. This gives us a space to do that to really focus, sit
down, and ask them questions. And Ive noticed that the kids themselves
will be much more serious when invited into this sort of setting. (English
Teacher)

In addition, the students exhibited pride in their school and wanted their teachers to
succeed in the classroom. They noted that this process would be beneficial not just for
themselves but for their friends as well.
I like the idea of being able to help teachers understand students better
because that is going to help the learning environment. (12th Grade
Student)

Since this is helping people learn, why wouldnt I want to do this? I want
to help people. (11th Grade Student)

No bad can really come from this. It is one of those things that will help
either way. It will help the class, the individual student, the teacher. It is
just going to help. (12th Grade Student)

I dont know if this really helped me in the classroom. But I think that
what we did will help others. They [teachers] took the time to get these
groups together so it makes me think that it will help someone. (10th
Grade Student)

Some of their [students] input was not only about themselves but about
some of their colleagues as well. Some of their comments were about how
some kids dont care about things for this or that reason and giving
perspectives other than just about themselves. (Math Teacher)


56

As far as linking the use of student voice to student achievement, little empirical
evidence exists at this time. Both teachers and students had difficulty in answering
questions related to this topic. To a small degree, they were able to articulate some
noticeable changes in their classrooms. One student indicated that the means by which
homework reminders were being delivered by the teacher were adjusted because of the
WOW Academy focus group interaction. Another mentioned that he noticed an increase
in the help that he and others in the room were receiving by the teacher due once again to
the WOW Academy focus group work.
I could notice a difference. Sometimes like one kid wont get enough help
and I noticed that my teacher, especially [specific teacher] will go around
the class more and help people. This helps because sometimes is gets
complicated. (11th Grade Student)

In a few cases, teachers were also able to make a direct link between the activities in the
focus groups and changes in the classroom.
I assumed that kids knew the writing process going into this. I found that
re-teaching that process was very valuable. One of the things that we
developed was the exact steps to go through for the writing process. To
give them these steps really made a difference in the effectiveness of their
writing. When you walk in my room you used to see pictures of
computers and cameras and al that stuff. But now after this you see the
writing process in big signs on the wall. I have seen big improvement on
their projects. (CTE Teacher)

One group in particular focused their WOW Academy on a student project that had been
in place for several years. Through the focus group meeting, they understood why
students were having trouble understanding parts of the project related to critical
thinking. From there they made adjustments and brought the new and improved project


57
back to the classroom for student feedback. From that additional student voice feedback,
they made further adjustments on the project.
We have already changed and adjusted again because after we shared it in
our group we took it back and did a trial run right away with some of my
students and they made more recommendations. For me, that added more
valuable information to what I wanted to do with the assignment. (CTE
Teacher)

Overall, while there is some evidence that this work has reached the classroom level,
observational notes and interview records are limited which would indicate that
additional study needs to be done in this area.



58
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, ESSENTIAL LEARNINGS,
AND THE FUTURE OF STUDENT VOICE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Conclusions
As stated earlier in chapter 2, the overall goal of this project is to help determine
the future use of student voice activities as a means of increasing student engagement and
achievement in the Cascade Valley School District. In order to arrive at this future,
conclusions must be drawn from the study in order to make recommendation to the
system leaders of the district. To assist with these conclusions, we must answer the
subquestions generated earlier. When answering these questions, we must use the lenses
of equity and communities of practice in order to arrive at the necessary conclusions
about student voice in the lesson design process.
Subquestion 1. If one of the goals of this study is to influence teacher practice,
how does this process contribute to their professional and social needs resulting in a
greater investment in their roles as designers of engaging work for students? By itself,
the WOW Academies with the C4D protocol as the structure, provides a solid framework
for influencing teacher practice around the lesson design process. The major focus is on
gaining a firm understanding of why certain concepts are harder for students to learn. By
adding the use of focus groups to the equation, teachers gain a greater perspective of how
students think and learn helping to eliminate the blind spots that teachers commonly
have.
One of the big values of these focus groups is that we get a better
understanding of our student audience in terms of their background and
knowledge. I know that this information will give me an advantage into
developing classroom experiences that they will enjoy and learn from.
(CTE Teacher)

In addition to the overall structure of the process, the means by which the teachers come
to the table to take part in the conversation also plays a tremendous role in influencing
their practice. Putting it in terms related to the communities of practice theory, their
participation is based upon mutual interests. It was evident in the observations and


59
interviews that they respected each other as colleagues and placed value on one anothers
opinions. It is for this reason that teams came together in the first place. There was
already a degree of professional and social admiration in place which helped the process
to move forward in a smooth fashion from the start. With this working relationship in
place, the teams could then negotiate meaning when presented with the data as well as the
reification process where they used the data to design an end product for the classroom.
While the working relationships helped to fill the professional and social needs of
the teachers, the data in the study would suggest not everything went easy for the groups.
In fact, each team that participated in the pilot project experienced some difficulty
whether it came from the initial fears and uncertainty of the process, the questioning
strategies, the student group make-up, or the analysis and sense making of the data.
Through the observations and interviews, it became clear that the teachers found this
work to be quite difficult. Perhaps this is due to the fact that this challenged the
traditional roles that exist between the student and teacher. Consider for a moment the
typical classroom exchange patterns where, Teachers ask, and students answer. The
content of a students answer is not judged on its intrinsic merit, but on its conformity to
a prespecified idea (Gamoran & Nystrand, 1992, p. 43). Instead, the art of developing
questions for focus groups aimed at lesson design mimics a conversation that can
promote engagement by incorporating students contributions into the academic
content (Gamoran & Nystrand, p. 45). In a way, the challenge for the teacher is that this
moves them out of their comfort zone and pushes them to question their own methods
and strategies in the classroom.
One of the challenges is to be humble enough to realize that what I am
doing is not working and I need to do it differently. Ive got a Masters
degree in education but I think I have learned more about teaching from
working with my students. (CTE Teacher)

Even with these challenges, each group persevered with the work and pushed through the
issues toward an end product. In the final interviews, each teacher indicated that they
would do this work again in fact several did (see Social Studies Team Stories 1 and 2).


60
For the groups to respond in this way, suggests that they have some investment in the
process. In a sense, these people are similar to the way Schlechty (2001) described
students in the educational process; as indentured volunteers. Their attendance at work is
mandatory, but their participation in the WOW Academies is by choice. This would
suggest a certain level of engagement on their part that has developed as a part of this
work.
Subquestion 2. If the overall goal of this study is to increase student achievement,
how does this process contribute to satisfying their academic and social needs, resulting
in a greater investment in their educational setting? In answering this question it is
important to note that from the beginning of the C4D process, the entire philosophy is to
address the needs of students that are struggling with concepts within the curriculum
presented in the classroom. For the most part, these are the students that rarely have a
voice in the academic setting. They may have roles in other settings in the school such as
in extra-curricular activities, but the classroom can be closed to their individual needs
related to academics and socialization. With the addition of the student focus groups, a
component is provided which allows students to have a voice in the process. For a brief
portion of their day, these students had an opportunity to have the undivided attention of
five to seven adults who were truly interested in what they had to say. How do we know
this? Each student indicated in the interview process that the teachers conducting the
WOW Academy focus groups showed interest in them as students. They took notes,
nodded their heads in approval when the students made good points, and thanked them at
the end for their input. And what did they have to say to the teachers? The observational
notes indicate that they were able to share their stories of what worked and didnt work in
the classroom for them over the years. They could share their frustrations and the
emotional toll that certain activities played on their self-esteem and confidence. The end
result is that for the duration of the focus group, the traditional power structure that has
existed for years with the teacher in a dominant role over students shifts to where
students enter the room on more of an equal basis with the teachers. In addition, that
feeling of empowerment only increases as students begin to understand that the
information they give to the teachers will result in lessons designed for them and their


61
fellow classmates. J ust as the teachers make the transition into investment of the process
through their participation, so too do the students through this shift of power.
With this shift in the power structure and the focus on the concepts that
students find difficult to learn, the potential is there to meet the equity
dimensions defined earlier in chapter 2. As the C4D protocol pushes
teachers toward designing lessons once they have gained a greater
perspective on their students through the focus group setting, then no
matter the resources of the family or community, students have an
opportunity to participate and reap the benefits of this academic work. In
addition, the plans and practices (curriculum) of the educational system
change as the adults listen to the diverse social needs of their customers, or
students. Finally, with the emphasis on hard to teach and learn concept,
this keeps the expectations of the school high since these concepts as well
as the outcomes defined by the state or district remain the same for all
students. The only difference is the means by which the students are
taught to grasp those concepts. That is influenced by the emphasis on the
student voice as a part of the protocol. If this project can have that desired
effect, then the educational system could take an important step toward
creating an equitable environment that meets the academic and social
needs of its students.

Therefore, as a result of the answers to the subquestions above, the following
conclusions can be drawn around this study:
Conclusion 1. The incorporation of student voice activities into the C4D protocol
increases the engagement levels of the participants in the lesson design process. While
this study did not attempt to measure engagement levels in the participants in a
quantitative manner, the qualitative methods of observations and interviews did provide
evidence that the student voice activities were engaging to the participants. And, since
the overall focus of the WOW Academies was ultimately geared toward lesson design, an
argument can be made that the engagement levels experienced in the student voice


62
activities transfer to the lesson design as well. For the teachers and students involved in
the process, the evidence of this engagement comes through observed behaviors that they
exhibited throughout the project. These included the high levels of interest displayed by
teachers and staff during the questioning phase of the focus groups, the ways in which
teachers listened to and recorded student responses to these questions, the data analysis
where the teams discussed the student responses in relationship to the hard to teach and
learn concepts, the means by which the teams worked through the difficult issues that
cropped up during their time together, and the constant reference the teams made to
students responses during the lesson design phase of the protocol. In addition to the
observed behaviors, their multitude of responses in the interview focus groups during the
project also indicated a level of engagement with the process. Overall, the responses and
behaviors by both groups appear to meet Newmanns (1992) psychological investment
definition of engagement.
Conclusion 2. The incorporation of student voice activities into the C4D protocol
increases the perspectives of the participants around the roles that they play in relation to
others in the educational system. The work completed as a part of the pilot project
challenged the traditional roles for teachers and students that have existed for decades.
These are similar to what Freire (1970) described as banking education where teachers
make deposits of information which students are to receive, memorize, and repeat. Once
again, it was quite evident through the observations and interview responses that the
teachers were no longer making deposits while students sat passively. Instead, teachers
used the process to listen to students experiences in the classroom and gained
perspective on how education does or does not meet their needs. Likewise, the students
had the opportunity to see the effort being put forth by the teachers into the lesson design
process. In this setting, each side becomes the learner and instead of the perpetuating the
banking model, a new model emerges that hinges on dialogue and mutual
understanding.

Conclusion 3. Given the limitations of the study with regard to the time
boundaries, it is too early to tell if the student voice activities incorporated within the


63
C4D protocol increase overall student achievement. As discussed in chapter 4 regarding
the results that emerged as a part of the data collection, evidence is limited as far as the
work in this project leading to an increase in student achievement in the classroom. Both
teachers and students found this to be a difficult area to discuss and the observational
notes were brief in this area. With that said, the literature supports the notion that an
increase in student engagement will bring an overall increase in achievement. More
specifically, since this project emphasizes hard to teach and learn concepts that have been
identified by the students and the teachers, then it would be appropriate to suggest that
the lessons generated using student voice have the potential to raise the achievement
levels of students around those concepts. Considering that this process has already
demonstrated the ability to engage students as well as teachers, there is validity in the
argument that the student voice activities as a part of this pilot project have a strong
potential to raise achievement levels.
Implications
While the conclusions mentioned above are specific to Cascade Valley High
School and the student voice pilot project, the work completed as a part of this study has
some potential implications for other areas in the educational realm.

Implication 1. The work done as a part of the pilot project has the potential to
transfer to the younger grade levels throughout the Cascade Valley School system. Since
teachers all across the Cascade Valley School District are familiar with WOW Academies
and the C4D protocol, it would be possible to expand the use of the student voice
activities beyond the high school into the younger grade levels. However, what is
deemed appropriate and necessary as far as outcomes for the students in one school, may
not be the same for another. Therefore, school leaders must decide what outcomes they
wish for students as a result of the student voice activities. Mitra (2004) identified three
developmental assets that students can attain as well as the ways in which student voice
works to increase these assets (see Table 2). These assets include:
1. Agency. Acting or exerting influence and power in a given situation.


64
2. Belonging. Developing meaningful relationships with other students and
adults and having a role at the school.
3. Competence. Developing new abilities and being appreciated for one's
talents.

Therefore, school leaders wishing to build students sense of belonging would use the
appropriate student voice activities that would build that asset for students.


Table 2. Youth Outcomes

Youth Development Asset Ways That Student Voice Increases This Asset

Agency * Increasing ability to articulate opinions to others
* Constructing new identities as change makers
* Developing a greater sense of leadership

Belonging * Developing a relationship with a caring adult
* Improving interactions with teachers
* Increasing attachment to the school

Competence * Critiquing their environment
* Developing problem solving and facilitation skills
* Getting along with others
* Speaking publicly

Ultimately, if other schools in the system began to use student voice in order to build
student assets, then the system should see a change in how students view school and their
role in a true learning organization.


65
What is going to be interesting is to watch kids come through the system
and they are more self aware and more comfortable talking this language
with teachers and what kinds of opportunities are we going to be creating
to incorporate them more. They are going to be much more active
consumers in their education. (Administrator)

Implication 2. The work done as a part of the pilot project has the potential to
transfer to other schools in the Standard Bearer Network. J ust as other schools in the
system have the potential to tap into the student voice via the WOW Academies and C4D
protocol, so too do the schools that are a part of the Standard Bearer Network. Many of
those schools currently use the C4D protocol in some fashion or another and adding this
step could be a realistic venture. Again, system leaders in other districts need to evaluate
the assets they wish to build in their students as well as the possible outcomes they want
to see happen. Such an undertaking would require an examination of the resources that
must be committed to making student voice activities a reality.
Implication 3. The lessons learned as a part of the pilot project have the potential
to change how teachers approach future lesson design. Since the student voice activities
in this study have contributed to satisfying many of the professional and social needs of
the teachers involved, this method of lesson design may prove to be enticing as a future
method for educators. The traditional lesson planning methods and means of
collaboration used for many years may be pushed aside with this new process in mind.
As teachers begin to see the results in the classroom as far a student achievement, they
may become convinced that utilizing student voice is a better course of action. This does
not necessarily mean that the C4D protocol must be employed to capture this voice.
Other means of collecting information may rise to the surface such as surveys and
classroom focus groups. Using this approach toward curriculum may also remove many
of the barriers that make teaching such an isolated venture. The collaborative nature of
the work could lead to more open communication not only in departments, but across
disciplines and grade levels.


66
Implication 4. The experiences gained by the participants in the study has the
potential to change the way they view their role in the school system. The Cascade
Valley School Districts partnership with the Schlechty Center for School Reform has
provided opportunities for conversation around the roles that people fill within a true
learning organization (see Appendix A). In summary, the roles comprise the following:
1. Student as volunteer.
2. Teacher as leader and designer.
3. Principal as leader of leaders.
4. Superintendent as moral and intellectual leader and capacity builder.
5. School Board as community leaders and advocates for schools.
6. Parents as partner and member of the school community.

Over the years, the professional development activities inside the district have been
carried out with these roles in mind. However, none of the prior activities have the same
potential to solidify these roles with the members of the community as does the student
voice within the C4D protocol. This is because the participants, mainly the students and
teachers, actually live and practice these roles as a part of the process. Furthermore,
because the participants experience success in terms of increased engagement, they are
more likely to accept these roles for themselves and others in the organization. As others
see this success, such as parents and school board members, they will also come to accept
these roles and become partners with the schools.
Essential Learnings
Over the course of the study, there have been several key learnings that have
emerged centered around student voice, and staff development. Probably the most
important area that came into view was not so much of a new learning as opposed to a
reminder about one of our core responsibilities in education. This has to do with equity
and the opportunities that we provide for all students in the system. Unfortunately our
schools do not appear to be structured in ways that encourage equitable leaning
opportunities for all. Too often the obstacles to equity are difficult to overcome leading


67
to acceptance on the part of educators, parents, and students themselves that equity can
never be achieved. However, with the student voice in the pilot project, equity is the
primary driver of this work. The simple act of giving kids that are disenfranchised in the
system a chance to speak about their experiences in school to adults is powerful. To have
adults listen and take corrective action in the classroom based upon the students message
goes even further. While this is just a starting point on the road to equitable learning, it is
a step in the right direction.
Another area of learning comes in the concept of communities of practice as a
model for staff development. A large part of the success surrounding the student voice
project has to do with this incentive-based means of getting staff working together toward
a common goal. In retrospect, had it been a mandate by system leaders to get teachers
together to participate in the C4D protocol, it would not have had the desired effects and
the observations and interview responses would have been much different. Instead,
teams formed because of a common belief system and thus their experiences in the
project lead to a more engaging outcome. As a policy tool, the communities of practice
model has some far reaching potential if the need is for groups to develop meaning
around their roles, relationships, and practices inside the learning organization.
One of the more interesting areas of new learning came in the form of student
voice and how to best elicit this voice. This appears to be a relatively new field of
research with a select number of authors writing on the subject. As a result, the literature
is fairly limited in terms of the studies that have been performed around student voice
activities. This made the pilot project a challenge to a certain degree because there was
no clear path to success. On the other hand, it made the process exciting because it
allowed for the creation of a new path with all sorts of challenges to tackle. One of these
challenges came in the form of the development of focus groups. In checking the
research, very little exists on the subject of schools using focus groups as a means of
improving student achievement. Most of the literature on focus groups comes from the
world of business where these are used quite heavily in product development. Even with
their use in this area, the literature is still limited when it comes to structuring and
running focus groups. It would appear that marketing firms have a fairly strong interest


68
in keeping that information hidden. An additional challenge came in the form
questioning strategies to be used as a part of the focus groups. In many ways, the
questioning done as part of this process is much different from the strategies that teachers
use on a daily basis in the classroom. So, along with the research into the development of
focus groups, learning had to take place around the questioning process so that teachers
could get informative data for the lesson design portion of the protocol.
The Future of Student Voice in the School District

Unless they [students] have some meaningful vote in the enterprise, most
educational change, indeed most education will fail. (Fullan, 2007)

The quote above from Fullan will essentially become the rally cry for the next
stages of student voice activities in the Cascade Valley School District. Given what has
been learned from the study, it would be irresponsible to ignore the conclusions and the
implication of this work especially as it plays a potential role in creating equity for all
students. Thus it becomes the responsibility of the system level leaders to take the next
steps in moving this work forward to the system level. Using the lessons learned in the
study, it will be possible to build the capacity for this work to flourish beyond the
confines of the high school.
One of the first steps will be for the system level leadership to begin
communicating the conclusions and potential implications that emerged as a part of the
pilot project. Starting in the fall of 2009, this communication must reach out to all
teachers in the district either through district and building retreats or district newsletters.
It is especially important for those that are interested in participating in WOW Academies
during the 2009-2010 school year to hear this message so they can begin to prepare
themselves for student participation. Following that communication, the C4D protocol
needs to be adjusted to include student voice activities for all teams that attend the WOW
Academies. On that same note, support needs to be provided on how all grade levels can
utilize student voice in the lesson design process. However, prior to this step, careful


69
consideration needs to be placed on some of the deficiencies that were recognized by the
participants in the study. Included in this would be questioning strategies and the means
by which students are selected to participate in the student voice activities.
Since one of the conclusions of the study noted that there was not enough data to
indicate that student achievement would improve as a result of student voice, this would
naturally be a next step in the learning process. At some point down the road, pre and
post assessment data would help to discover if the use of student voice is indeed having
an impact on student achievement. It would also allow for system leaders to make
adjustments to the process where necessary in order to meet this goal.
As these changes begin to take place inside the district and more schools begin to
utilize the student voice activities, it becomes the responsibility of the system level
leadership to once again communicate the goals and intentions of the project. However
this time the communication needs to go forth to the greater community so that they are
aware of how their students input is being used to improve the educational opportunities
for all. As a learning organization, the strength of this message only helps the people
within that system to clarify and understand their roles so that there is support for all
students.






70
LIST OF REFERENCES
Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and the imperative of including student voices,
student interests, and students lives in the mainstream. International J ournal of
Leadership in Education, 9(4), 369-379.
Appleton, J . J ., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J . (2008). Student engagement with
school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.
Barton, P. E. (2004). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining
opportunities. Princeton, NJ : Policy Information Center, Educational Testing
Service.
Brewster, C., & Fager, J . (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From
time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Campbell, T. (2009). Listening to students: The missing component in school reform.
Curriculum in Context, 36(1), 18-21.
Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of
teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.),
New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 25-46). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and
change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
Education World (2008). Curriculum: National and state standards Retrieved August 31,
2008, from http://www.education-world.com/standards/
Fielding, M. (2001). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new
constraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling? FORUM, 43(2), 100-
109.
Fredricks, J . A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-
109.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.


71
Furrer, C. J ., Skinner, E., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. A. (2006). Engagement vs.
disaffection as central constructs in the dynamics of motivational development.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, San Francisco, CA.
Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1992). Taking students seriously. In F. Newmann (Ed.),
Student engagement and achievement in American schools (pp. 40-61). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60, 549-571.
Kahle, J . B. (2004). Reaching equity in systemic reform: How do we assess progress and
problems? Research Monograph. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science
Education.
Klem, A., & Connell, J . (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. J ournal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kohn, A. (2000). Unlearning how we learn. Principal (Reston, VA), 79(4), 26-29, 31-32.
Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. J ournal of
Educational Change, 1(2), 155-172.
McCammon, S. (2008). Measuring what matters in Fife School District: A
transformational change toward engaging every student. Fife, WA: Fife School
District.
Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher
relationships. McGill J ournal of Education, 38(2), 289-304.
Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing 'student voice' in schools
lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651-688.
Mitra, D. (2006). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership. The
Prevention Researcher, 13(1), 7-10.
Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D.
Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience
in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727-744). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, 46, 34-36.


72
Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American
secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Oldfather, P. (1995). Songs Come back most to them: Students' experiences as
researchers. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 131-137.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Renzulli, J . S. (2008). Engagement is the answer. Education Week, 27(43), 30-31.
Schlechty Center (2008). Core beliefs. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from
http://www.schlechtycenter.org
Schlechty Center (2009, March 8-11). Images of School Chart. Paper presented at the
Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform, Albuquerque, NM.
Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain
educational innovation. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 109-132.
Smyth, J . (2006). Educational leadership that fosters student voice. International J ournal
of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 279-284.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2006). Voices of students on engagement: A Report on the 2006 high
school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation
and Education Policy, Indiana University.







73
APPENDIX A. IMAGES OF SCHOOL CHART




F
r
o
m

t
h
e

S
c
h
l
e
c
h
t
y

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
e
f
o
r
m
,

A
l
b
u
q
u
e
r
q
u
e
,

N
M
,

2
0
0
9
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

2
0
0
9

b
y

t
h
e

S
c
h
l
e
c
h
t
y

C
e
n
t
e
r
.

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
.



74
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS ADMINISTRATOR
QUESTIONS


1. Tell me who you are, your role, and how long you have been in the district.

2. How was the decision made to incorporate the use of student focus groups in the
lesson design process used by the district?

3. Think back to the types of questions asked of the students in the focus groups.
What types of questions seemed to solicit thoughtful responses on the part of
students?

4. Can you think of specific examples where the student feedback you heard in focus
groups resulted in specific changes in lesson design and delivery? If so, please
describe those.

5. To what extent did student contributions in the focus groups shape your thinking
about the value of student voice in the lesson design process?

6. What specific student contributions, if any, do you recall as being most important in
shaping your thinking about the value of student voice in the lesson design process?

7. To what extent do you feel students benefited from having teachers question them
about the design of lessons?

8. Thinking back to the teacher conversations that occurred before, during, and after
the student focus groups, how do you think teachers responded to having students
discuss classroom curricular issues?

9. If the use of student focus groups becomes a regular part of WOW Academies in
the future, what changes would you like to see as a result of your experiences this
year?

10. Is there anything that I didn't ask or is there any additional information regarding
student focus groups and lesson design that you would like to add?




75
APPENDIX C. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS TEACHER QUESTIONS


1. Tell me who you are, your role, and how long you have been in the district.

2. How did you learn about the use of student focus groups as a part of designing
lessons?

3. Think back to when you first agreed to become involved in the use of student focus
groups. What were you hoping this process would accomplish?

4. Think back to when your team created questions for the student focus group. What
process did you use to create the questions and how do you feel they targeted the type
of information you were seeking from the students?

5. To what extent did student contributions in the focus groups shape your thinking
about how to improve your focused lesson?

6. What specific student contributions, if any, do you recall as being most important for
shaping the decisions you made about the lesson?

7. If the district were to make student focus groups a standard part of WOW Academies
in the future, what advice would you give to teacher colleagues or administrators
about moving forward with this plan?

8. Is there anything that I didn't ask or is there any additional information regarding
student focus groups and lesson design that you would like to add?




76
APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUPS STUDENT QUESTIONS


1. Tell me your name, your grade level, and how long you have been a student in the
district.

2. How did you first learn about being involved in a focus group with your teachers?

3. How did you feel about being asked to participate in a focus group?

4. What do you think the teachers were trying to accomplish by including students
viewpoints through the use of focus groups?

5. Go back to when you participated in the focus group. Can you think of a specific
contribution that you or one of the other students made that helped the teachers
with their work?

6. How interested do you think your teachers were in what you had to say in the
focus group? How do you know this?

7. After the focus group, did anything happen in one or more of your classes that
you think is related to the conversation you had with your teachers? If so, what?

8. If your teachers were to make focus groups a regular part of their routine, what
advice would you give on how to use them in the future?

9. If asked to participate in a future focus group, would you do it? Why or why not?

10. Do you have any other comments about your experience with the focus group that
you would like to add?




77
APPENDIX E. PARENT PERMISSION LETTER


April 10, 2009

Dear Parents:

During the course of this school year, your child participated in a focus group during the school day that
helped teachers design engaging lessons around hard to teach concepts. This is part of the ongoing work at
Cascade Valley High School and the Cascade Valley School District where teachers are using focus groups
in order to understand our students better as learners as well as solicit their feedback on the work that is
presented to them in the classroom. The end result is that we hope to improve our ability to instruct
students on difficult material so that interest and achievement levels increase.

On April 22, 2009, your child will have another opportunity to participate in a focus group that will study
their experiences related to their previous work with our staff. The purpose of this group will be to help the
school and the district determine the next steps related to this work. Since the focus and potential outcome
of this group will be different, we are seeking approval for your child to participate. As you consider this
request, please know the following:
Their participation is strictly voluntary.
There is no impact to grades or status in the school or classroom.
The focus group may be videotaped for later review and use by the Cascade Valley School
District.
The focus group will be facilitated by an independent researcher hired by the district.
The information presented by your child may be used in a doctoral research study through the
University of Washington. All information relating to your child in this study will remain strictly
anonymous and confidential.

We have sincerely appreciated your childs help in this process to date and we hope that they will continue
to participate and provide us with quality information that will help our school and district move forward.
If you wish to have your child participate, please sign and date the bottom portion of this letter and have
them return it to the school. If you have questions or concerns related to this work, please feel free to call
me (253) 517-1100.

Sincerely,

Mark Knight
Principal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I give my permission for _____________________________________________ to participate in the focus
group session on April 22, 2009.

______________________________________________ _________________________________
Parent Signature Date


78
APPENDIX F. TEACHER PARTICIPATION E-MAIL
Dear Group:
Bear with me this is a long e-mail with quite a bit of information.
At some point during the year, each of you took the opportunity to participate in either a
district or in-building WOW Academy in which student focus groups were a part of the
design process. As a follow-up to this work, I would like to set-up a series of teacher
focus groups that will help inform the future use of student voice in lesson design. Your
participation will help in three ways:
1) It will provide data for our building as we move forward in our work around
student voice, diversity, and hard to teach concepts
2) It will give the district information as to how to design future WOW Academies
3) It will provide me with data for use in my doctoral dissertation (I am conducting
action research around the use of student voice in lesson design in the Cascade
Valley School District)
Please know that your participation in this exercise is optional. It has no bearing on your
employment, evaluation, or future teaching schedule. If you decide to participate, here is
how it will work:
1) The date for the focus group sessions will be Wednesday, April 1 (yes this is a
Standard Bearer Early Release Day)
2) The focus group sessions will occur in the morning
3) There will be three groups/sessions:
a. Group 1 7:45 8:45
b. Group 2 9:00 10:00
c. Group 3 10:15 11:15
4) I will assign you to a group (if you have a preference on a particular time I can try
to accommodate your needs)
5) I will provide coverage for you during your assigned time
6) Each session will occur in the Counseling Center conference room
7) A facilitator from outside the district will be conducting the questioning
8) Each focus group will be videotaped in order to be transcribed at a later date (I
will gather your permission prior to using any quotes in my dissertation)
9) The video clips from the focus groups may be streamed for use on a future district
website on student voice (again with your permission)
Once again, your participation will provide the district and school information as to how
student voice will be utilized in the future. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Please let me know one way or another if you are interested. Also, dont hesitate to ask if
you have any questions.
Thanks,
Mark


79
VITA
Mark Edward Knight was born on October 1, 1966 in Portland, Oregon and has lived his
entire life in the Pacific Northwest. He achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1988 and
secondary teaching certificate in 1989 from the University of Washington. He later went
on and earned his Master of Education degree with an emphasis in Curriculum and
Instruction from Western Washington University in 1993. In 1999 he returned to the
University of Washington to earn his Principals Certification. His professional career
has included 10 years of high school teaching in the areas of social studies, English, and
leadership. It has also included another 10 years of high school administration in both
large and small suburban school districts. He currently serves as a principal at the high
school level. Mark resides in Puyallup, Washington with his wife Kim, and children
Andrew, Rachel, and Melissa.