The contribution of student voice in classroom research

Abstract

This paper addresses issues related to the triangulation of data in classroom video research—in particular the contribution of the student voice to the research methodology. The case of a Year 8 boy—Leon—is used to illustrate the multiple interpretations that may result when the student voice is included. This case draws attention to the benefits of a research methodology that increases validity by providing additional sources of data and raises issues regarding the weighing of evidence where differences in interpretation arise. This case is used to illustrate the use of triangulation and the evaluation strategies that take advantage of the multidimensional data to synthesise the complementary interpretations derived from the different data sources into a coherent portrayal of an individual’s classroom practice. It is our contention that research into social interactions in complex social settings must draw on the widest possible range of data types. Although the survey-style analyses undertaken by Jim Stigler and James Hiebert is a rich source of information on classroom processes, like many research designs it omits ‘the student’s voice’. The Learner’s Perspective Study used three video cameras to ensure that the nature of student classroom practice is captured in at least the same detail as teacher practice. In addition, post-lesson video-stimulated interviews offered students the opportunity to reconstruct their classroom experiences, their motivations, and their practice. This richness of data poses new methodological challenges: In particular, how are we to construct our portrayal of the classroom from the combination of these complementary data sources? In this paper, we illustrate the complementarity and occasionally conflicting interpretive accounts of classroom practice generated from these different data sources. The focus of our discussion is the difference in two interpretations of the classroom behaviour of a Year 8 student, Leon, in one lesson. Each author’s interpretation was based on a different data source: a) observation of Leon and his friend Pepe during the lesson; or b) the video stimulated reconstructive interview. In this paper, these interpretations are compared to explore the contribution of the student voice to classroom research. Our intention is to firstly précis those two analyses separately and then to attempt a synthesis, drawing on additional evidence for the purpose of constructing a coherent and plausible account of Leon’s actions during that lesson, and even of the motivations that prompted those actions. In particular, the significance of the complementarity of such data is addressed and the positivistic convergence on a single ‘correct’ interpretation is contrasted with the richness offered by the synthesis of complementary interpretations (see Clarke, 2001).