130 likes | 249 Views
27th February 2013. Students’ participation in the development of an Early Years Resource and Research Room. Early Childhood Research Group, Department of Education. Programme for the day. 11:45 - 12:00 Welcome and Introduction (Tea/ coffee)
E N D
27th February 2013 Students’ participation in the development of an Early Years Resource and Research Room Early Childhood Research Group, Department of Education
Programme for the day 11:45 - 12:00 Welcome and Introduction (Tea/ coffee) 12:00- 12:05 The Early Childhood Research Group 12:05- 12:15 The EYRRR: its inception and value in our curriculum. 12:15- 12:30 Students’ participation in the development of EYRR 12:30—13:00 Sharing our ‘stories’ (staff and students) 13:00- 13:45 Lunch and networking 13:45- 14:45 The best ways of encouraging students participation in wider pedagogical processes 14:45- 15:10 The impact of students’ participation on their learning and personal development 15:10-15:30 Plenary/ Questions/ Answers/Tea- coffee
Creation of a shared pedagogical space in the form of an Early Years Resource and Research Room (EYRRR) Exploring students’ perceptions of an EYRRR (using participatory approaches) Explore the feasibility of incorporating students’ views into the planning, designing and usage of the EYRRR Impact of students’ participation on their learning and personal development Aims of the seminar
Participatory approaches Mostly associated with Social transformation (empowering the disempowered) human activist perspective Recently Its use has broadened knowledge developed in collaboration with local experts Students’ voice Linear and individualised Interactional and socially constructed Authentic voice Power relations (Spyrou, 2011)
Approaches used Student e mail/ Virtual Learning Environment Leaflet/ poster Participatory (focus) group meetings Working group meetings Research group meetings
Working group meeting(s) Dialogic environment Focus group meetings Respecting varying degrees of participation Extra time to think and participate in different ways Shared decision making Discussing and agreeing the questions that need answering Discussing and agreeing a list of methods to answer the questions Choosing a method (from the agreed list) and answering the (agreed) questions An initial interpretation of the responses by identifying common ‘themes’ for analysis Discussing/ debating and agreeing ‘common’ themes for analysis
Research group meeting(s) Data analysis Drawing consensus on the diversity of ideas by revisiting themes for CRRC (inductive approaches to data analysis) Developing a matrix to discuss ‘local’ priorities and debate the ‘feasibility’ of incorporating the ‘themes’ into CRRC Discussing ‘feasibility’ by considering the criteria of time; cost-effectiveness; and ecological, social and pedagogical impacts Debriefing Future involvement in the project
Perceptions of a teacher’s role: vertical vs horizontal hierarchy Short-term participation Normalising dialogic relationship (Seale, 2010) Hybrid identity (consumers + responsible for institution's functioning) Processes can privilege the already privileged (Bragg, 2007) Challenges
Personal reflection Participatory approaches Varying degrees of participation Sustaining participation (continuous- fragmented) Empowering and transformative Can they instigate systemic change Insider- outsider dilemma Build processes to mitigate against these criticisms/ dilemmas (to talk openly about the insecurities and challenges)
Impact on students learning and personal development Student presenters
Impact on students’ learning and personal development Empowerment (both student and researcher): Personal: sense of self, individual confidence and capacity to bring about change Relational: capacity to participate rationally and critically in group situations; , negotiate and influence the nature of relationship Collective: achieve a more extensive impact (Pant, n.d.) Process and product both important: Process: a taster of research processes (data collection and data analysis) Product: expression of views getting built in some way into the provision of the CRRC
Higher Education Academy Childhood Youth and Research Institute Gerry Czerniawski, University of East London Warren Kidd, University of East London Judy VanDerheen, University of Pretoria, South Africa Vickie Thomas, Essex County Council Mark Miller, Learning Technologist, Anglia Ruskin University Dominic Abbott and Gemma Lewis and all other student participants Thank you
Bragg, S. (2007) Students voice and governmetality: the production of enterprising subjects? Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 28: 3, 343-358 Pant, M. (n.d.) Participatory Research (Online) Available at http://www.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_8A4DA2D14C7705777AD77C0F25AF56E533F60100/filename/unit_08.pdf, Accessed October 8, 2012 Seale, J. (2010) Doing student voice work in Higher Education: an exploration of the value of participatory methods British Educational Research Journal, 36:6, 995-1015 Spyrou, S. (2011) The limits of children’s voices: from authenticity to critical, reflexive representation Childhood 18 (2): 151-165 References