“Student voice” (SV) refers to listening to and valuing students’ views regarding their learning experiences, as well as treating them as equal partners in the evaluation process. This is expected, in turn, to empower students to take a more active role in shaping their learning. This study explores the role played by digital technologies in creating a space for SV in academia. The qualitative study was conducted in an academic course, which combines face-to face, synchronous lessons with a variety of asynchronous self-directed and group learning activities. The participants were 54 Master’s students in education. We analyzed the pedagogical design of the course, as well as interpretations of teaching, learning, assessment, and the role of technology as experienced and presented by the students. The findings demonstrated that students functioned as co-designers of the course content, co-creators of teaching and of their own learning experience. Students perceived the requirements of active learning, teamwork, and community participation (i.e., an advanced way of conveying SV—leadership; Mitra International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school, Springer Publishers, The Netherlands, 2007), as both challenges related to overload and stress, and benefits related to the gains of meaningful learning, innovative pedagogical design, and diverse instructional methods. The equalization effect of the digital environment, which diminishes status cues changed the power dynamic, promoted students’ active participation and their pedagogical partnership with the instructor. Based on the findings, our conceptualization of SV and its implications for academia includes: (1) co-design of content, (2) co-teaching, (3) co-creation of learning experience and outcomes, and (4) embedded co-assessment for learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2007). Personality, individual differences and Internet use. In A. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 187–204). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Barak, A. (2009). Internet and well-being. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), Technology and psychological well-being (pp. 34–76). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883.
Bergan, S. (2003). Student participation in higher education governance. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/Governance/SB_student_participation_EN.pdf
Blair, E., & Valdez Noel, K. (2014). Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: Is the student voice being heard? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 879–894.
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2010). Studying invisibly: Media naturalness and learning. In N. Kock (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology and information systems research: A new approach to studying the effects of modern technologies on human behavior (pp. 193–216). New-York: Springer.
Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2012). How do personality, synchronous media, and discussion topic affect participation? Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 12–24.
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). Sharing and collaborating with Google Docs: The influence of psychological ownership, responsibility, and student's attitudes on outcome quality. In Proceedings of the e-learn 2009 world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 3329–3335). Chesapeake: AACE.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017a). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 769–787.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017b). Re-designed flipped learning model in an academic course: The role of co-creation and co-regulation. Computers & Education, 115, 69–81.
Blau, I., Weiser, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2017). How do medium naturalness and personality traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-face and synchronous elearning. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1974.
Blythman, M., Hampton, D., et al. (2006). Researching foundation degrees: Linking research and practice. In P. Beaney (Ed.), Recovering the student voice: retention and achievement on foundation degrees. London and Lichfield: FDF Publications.
Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 327–347.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal of Academic Development, 16, 133–145.
Campbell, F., Beasley, L., Eland, J. & Rumpus, A. (2007). Hearing the student voice Promoting and encouraging the effective use of the student voice to enhance professional development in learning, teaching and assessment within higher education. Project Report for Escalate. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://escalate.ac.uk/downloads/3911.pdf
Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298.
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). The trajectory of student voice in educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 131–148.
Cruddas, L., & Haddock, L. (2003). Girls’ voices: Supporting girls’ learning and emotional development. Stratfordhire, England: Trentham Books.
Dinsdale, J. (2002). Student voice: Working to ensure successful transition to Higher Education. In A. Hayton & A. Paczuska (Eds.), Access, participation and higher education: Policy and practice (pp. 235–244). London: Kogan Page.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2), 114–119.
Duffy, K. A., & O’Neil, P. A. (2003). Involving medical students in staff development activities. Medical Teacher, 25(2), 191–194.
Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236–241.
Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006). Research publications: Listening to the learner. Bristol: Future Lab Publications.
Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311.
Freeman, R. (2014). Student voice: New forms of power and governmentality in higher education. Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham.
Grion, V., & de Castro, P. A. (2014). Evaluating schools in Italy: Students’ voices—effective or supportive? Revista Teias, 15(38), 188–204.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 163–194.
Hampton, D., & Blythman, M. (2006). Recovering the student voice: Retention and achievement on Foundation degrees. In P. Beaney (Ed.), Researching foundation degrees: Linking research and practice. London and Lichfield: FDF publications.
Hart, M., & Rush, R. (2007). E-learning and the development of ‘voice’ in business studies education. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 68–77.
Healey, M., O’Connor, K. M., & Broadfoot, P. (2010). Reflections on engaging students in the process and product of strategy development for learning, teaching, and assessment: An institutional case study. International Journal for Academic Development, 15, 19–32.
Howitt, S. M., & Wilson, A. N. (2015). Developing, expressing and contesting opinions of science: Encouraging the student voice. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 541–553.
Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.
Kidd, W., & Czerniawski, G. (2011). The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344.
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2008). Influences on the nature and functioning of online groups. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 228–242). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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. The Netherlands: Springer Publishers.
Osler, A (2008). Are we educating for democracy or for compliancy? A critical examination of ‘pupil voice’ and ‘rights friendly’ schools. Paper presented at the FutureLab Conference on ‘Challenging Learner Voice’. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/event_presentations/learner_voice/audrey_osler_transcript.pdf
Parsell, G. (2000). Asking questions-improving teaching. Medical Education, 34, 592–593.
Read, B., Francis, B., & Robson, J. (2001). ‘Playing Safe’: Undergraduate essay writing and the presentation of the student voice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 387–399.
Seale, J. (2009). Doing student voice work in higher education: an exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015.
Seale, J., Gibson, S., Haynes, J., & Potter, A. (2015). Power and resistance: Reflections on the rhetoric and reality of using participatory methods to promote student voice and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(4), 534–552.
Shah, M., Nair, S. C. (2006). Translating student voice into action: A case study at two Australian Universities. Paper presented at the Annual AUQF conference, Perth. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/pastfora/2006/program/paper/paper_f4.pdf
Shamir-Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2016). Developing digital wisdom by students and teachers: The impact of integrating tablet computers on learning and pedagogy in an elementary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 967–996.
Shamir-Inbal, T. & Blau, I. (2017). Promoting digital wisdom through involvement of students in pedagogical design of an academic course. In Paper presented at the 17th biennial EARLI 2017 conference for research on learning and instruction, Tampere, Finland.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157–187.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
Thompson, C., Gray, K., & Kim, H. (2014). How social are social media technologies (SMTs)? A linguistic analysis of university students’ experiences of using SMTs for learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 31–40.
Tucker, B. M. (2015). The student voice: Using student feedback to inform quality in higher education. PhD Dissertation, Curtin University. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=dbin-jump-full&local_base=gen01-era02&object_id=234289
Verill, P. (2007). Voices off? Using student voice for reflective staff development. In: F. Campbell, L. Beasley, J. Eland, & A. Rumpus (Eds.), Hearing the student voice: Promoting and encouraging the effective use of the student voice to enhance professional development in learning, teaching and assessment within higher education (pp. 77–84). Project Report for Escalate.
Walker, L., Logan, A. (2008). Learner Engagement: A review of learner voice initiatives across the UK’s education sectors. Future Lab Report. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/other_research_reports/Learner_Engagement.pdf
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.
Weiser, O., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2016). The role of pedagogy, media, and students' personality in synchronous learning: Comparing face-to-face and videoconferencing participation. In Proceedings of the 10th annual international technology, education and development conference-INTED2016, Valencia, Spain (p. 5005).
Welsh Assembly Government (2009). For our future: The 21st century higher education strategy and plan for wales. Retrieved December 26, 2015 from http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/091214hestrategyen.pdf
Williams, J., & Capuccino-Ansfield, G. (2007). Fitness for purpose? National and institutional approaches to publicising the Student Voice. Quality in Higher Education, 13(2), 159–172.
Zepke, N. (2011). Non-institutional influences and student perceptions of success. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 227–242.
About this article
Cite this article
Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T. Digital technologies for promoting “student voice” and co-creating learning experience in an academic course. Instr Sci 46, 315–336 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9436-y
- Student voice in higher education
- Student voice as listening, collaboration and leadership
- Teamwork and learning community
- Students as co-designers of content, teaching, learning and assessment
- Added value of technology and embedded assessment
- Online equalization effect
- Active participation and engagement