Elevating student voice and agency

This research illustrates how student voice can be honoured and enacted as a student-driven inquiry for positive change and desired outcomes in primary school. Student voice is an expression of student thinking, concerns, and goals within the social context of the classroom, school (Vaughn, 2021) and the broader community. As such, student voice can inform school and classroom structures, practices, learning foci, and supportive learning environments (e.g. Mayes et al., 2019) embedded in the everyday educational experience (de Leeuw et al., 2020). This paper seeks to add to the understanding of and advocacy for elevating student voice to promote impactful education that supports student agency (Vaughn, 2021) in meaningful ways. I take the position that ‘no one is too small to make a difference’ (Thunberg, 2019) and endeavour to add to the currently limited research into enacting socio-scientific issues within the primary school context (Dawson, 2023). This paper demonstrates a student-driven inquiry encompassing generative solutions to a student-identified challenge that positively affected the student’s lives and that of others in their community. I term this kind of inquiry that results in desired positive change as impactful inquiry. Students, teachers and school leadership identified student voice and agency as an outcome of participating in a microorganism learning sequence, that resulted in whole school change. This exemplifies that student voice need not be limited to opinion surveys or the actions of school-elected student leadership alone (Mayes et al., 2019). Hence, how student voice and agency are a mode for, and outcome of impactful inquiry is reported in this paper.

Establishing understanding and significance of student voice and agency

The young people of today have inherited a world that is fraught with socio and ecological challenges that concern them (White et al., 2023). Young people are calling for their voices to be heard on matters that impact their future, such as climate crises and biodiversity loss. The participation of young, primary school-age children in the School Strikes 4 Climate exemplifies student activism, the desire to voice their shared emotions and concerns about issues significant to them (Renshaw, 2021; White et al., 2021). This paper takes the position that youth anxiety or concerns about socio-ecological issues are warranted, and as such, student voice for positive change needs to be given weight (Lundy, 2007). However, it is important that this is without burden. It is critical that student voice is upheld and supported to find bearing, positioning, and a path forward to students’ desired positive change and impact.

Youth voice translated in the form of activism and agentic pursuit of change is a heartful response to the present and the cultivation of responsibility (Barad, 2007). The children of today are affected now—in the present, by complex societal challenges. They have an acute awareness of the present that is drawn from past experiences (Wessels, 2022), as they are entangled in the past, here and now, and the future (Barad, 2007). This was very apparent in the research reported in this paper. As children of ‘the most locked-down city in the world’ (Macreadie, 2022), the Year 6 children were well aware that life, and the COVID-19 pandemic, was not just happening ‘out there’; it had ubiquitously affected them. Attending school was not a certainty or taken for granted; students were aware that it could be taken away, as it had been for the two prior years (2020–2021—they had not attended school for an entire semester). In general conversations, they expressed their desire to ‘be at school’ and for ‘schools to stay open’; these sentiments were openly shared and mirrored by the teachers and researchers alike.

There is a growing assemblage of voices, researchers, educators, parents, and most certainly children that recognise children’s desire to positively influence matters that are significant to them (Thomson, 2010). This notion is captured in Mitman’s (2019) advocacy for ‘thinking that is not futurist but rather thinks of the present as a thick, complex tangle of times and places in which cultivating response-abilities, capacities to respond, matters’ (p. 17). Subsequently, this paper is grounded in ethical thinking of response-ability (Barad, 2007; 2020), focusing on developing primary children's capacity to respond to the world beyond oneself, to affect and be affected. Student voice in matters important to them, with consideration of future implications, warrants collective action and pedagogical focus, the intention of this paper. The notion that students are shaped by and can also shape complex sociological challenges (Wessels, 2022) is taken up in this study. I seek to add to current understandings of how to support children’s voice and desire for positive change, to develop their capacity and efficacy to positively influence their lived world now and potentially in the future.

Student voice and agency advocacy

Student voice linked to matters that are relevant and matter to them is synonymous with authentic student voice. The 2015 internationally agreed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) considered children (aged 0–18 years) at the heart of the goals, with advocacy that children’s voices themselves can and should be mobilised for influence and desired change (Clark et al., 2020; Lundy, 2007). Although progressing, enacting the SDGs and student voice has been slow (Clark et al., 2020). A critical understanding of voice is that it is integral to student agency (VicDET, 2023), co-produced between people (Charteris & Smardon, 2019) to pursue desired change. Student voice and agency together are growing in focus within international policy (e.g. OECD Learning Compass 2030) (OECD, 2019b) and the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022), the context of this research. Schools (e.g. Cook-Sather, 2020), School Strategic Plans and teachers, students and the broader community (Leadbeater, 2017) advocate for student voice and agency, and the need to prepare students to respond to current socio-ecological challenges and societal needs into the future (Leadbeater, 2017).

Student voice and agency in enactment

Although research has established that children can report on important issues and have the competence to articulate their views and opinions (Moore et al., 2008), enactment in the form of student influence and change at the school level is limited (Holquist et al., 2023). Student voice in the school context is commonly reported as performative and non-consequential, not resulting in change or transformative possibilities (Holquist et al., 2023). In particular, student voice in primary school is commonly associated with students ‘having a say’, voicing concerns, critiquing and making evaluative statements, or suggesting proposals in matters regarding classroom practices (e.g. teaching or learning) or student life (e.g. school policies or practices) often with little affect (Holquist et al., 2023). Student voice beyond opinion seeking and selected student leaders’ ‘voice’ as data sources to inform school practices is less understood and practised (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2016; Mayes et al., 2019). In addition to opportunities for student voice, it is the responsibility of educators to recognise the mélange of voices (Erikson, 2018) and critically be generatively responsive to student voice.

Literature commonly delineates student voice and agency as focused on enacted participation (e.g. Hart, 1992), partnerships, and interactionally oriented (e.g. Mitra, 2009) within a community. It is promoted as critical for and indicative of inclusive education (De Leeuw et al., 2020). Sargeant and Gillett-Swan (2019) advocate that voice-inclusive practices are student-driven, without burden or guilt, not for adult satisfaction or convenience but aligned with the rights and responsibilities of general citizenship. I also take this position in this paper and seek to illustrate transformative curriculum enactment in primary science.

Responsive pedagogy and curriculum enactment

The pedagogical acknowledgement of crisis (Ojala et al., 2021) and critical analysis of the present requires honouring student voice in school practice and responsive curriculum enactment in ways that consider possibilities and opportunities (Cook-Sather, 2006). Constructive engagement with issues of students' concern is advocated to alleviate possible anxiety and open up the potential for transformative change (Ojala et al., 2021). Recent student voice movements have advocated a transformative curricular approach that adopts a co-inquiry (e.g. Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Responding to student voice in this way, a student-driven collaborative inquiry is enacted in this paper as impactful inquiry.

This form of impactful inquiry pursues student inquiry for solutions to an identified issue significant to the students. Student-driven inquiry in this way requires the collective sharing of voice. Teachers and students can achieve this through shared decision-making, collective responsibility, commitment to positive change, and a citizen perspective (Fielding, 2007). Exemplary of a democratic teaching approach (Beane, 1997), integrational responsivity to student voice extends beyond tokenistic advocacy for student voice that has little influence (de Leeuw et al., 2020) to the actioning of student voice.

Research project background: critical and creative thinking

As reported in this paper, students, teachers, and school leadership reported voice and agency as key outcomes. The research focused on enabling students’ generative critical and creative thinking in primary science. Promoting student-informed decisions and cultivating collaborative critical thinking and creative thinking (Kamii, 2019) serves as a mode for and outcome of student agentic pursuit of solutions in this paper. Students’ critical and creative thinking and collaboration enabled the creation of new value (OECD, 2019a) as students took responsibility and innovated for sustainable community-based solutions. This aligns with recent international policy (Bentley, 2017; OECD, 2019a) and Australian curriculum advocacy for preparing students for desirable futures (ACARA, 2022). Internationally, there is a particularly strong promotion of creativity and creative agency in pursuing student innovations and solutions and preparing future-ready citizens (Leadbeater, 2017).

Research context

This paper reports the second iteration of a Year 6 Microorganisms learning sequence, ‘Mysterious Microorganisms’, that was contextually adapted to focus on developing students' 21st-century thinking skills. The previous microorganism sequence, ‘Magical Microorganisms,’ was part of the Australian Research Council (ARC): Interdisciplinary Mathematics and Science (IMS) Learning (Tytler et al., 2023) Project before the COVID-19 pandemic response. Student voice and agency were identified as significant findings and outcomes of the second iteration reported in this paper. Enacted during the challenging period of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a primary school (Year 6 cohort) in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, student health, including mental health, demanded careful consideration and attention as schools had only recently reopened, and the COVID-19 pandemic remained a concern for all research participants (Kirk & Ferguson, 2023). Epidemiologists regularly reported the pandemic in the media, including recommending mask-wearing and surface sanitisation, and air purifiers were recently installed in all classrooms. Students, teachers and researchers alike wore masks, and student and teacher absenteeism were frequent due to illness.

Student physical safety and mental health considerations were prioritised throughout this study (Kirk & Ferguson, 2023). The teachers and researchers identified the possibility of student distress in studying microorganisms prior to the Microorganisms lessons. As students had a prior understanding of how microorganisms and viruses spread, it was essential to ensure that students did not fear studying microorganisms based on their recent lived pandemic experiences. This required careful attention. As explained in the findings and discussion section, consultation with a University colleague and well-known epidemiologist within the community formed part of this consideration.

Mysterious microorganisms learning sequence

The previous iteration, the IMS learning microorganism sequence, entailed students’ investigations of microbes on surfaces through students' swabbing surfaces and growing cultures in agar plates. The teachers expressed a desire to do this again, as students engaged in ‘real scientific’ epistemic practices, including inquiry with agar plates and digital microscopes. However, considering the perceived direct exposure to microorganisms and the COVID-19 virus through students' swabbing surfaces and, conversely, the impact of regularly disinfected surfaces on the presence of microorganisms, the sequence was remodelled for students to investigate microbial load in the air. In consultation with co-researchers and teachers, the students (wearing masks) investigated the microbial load of the air. They uncovered agar plates to expose them to the air in different student-chosen locations As discussed further in the findings section, student-chosen investigation locations resulted in the student identification of high microbial load in the Lost Property Box. Subsequently, the student-driven inquiry into ways of inhibiting microbial growth and minimising potential health risks ensued and resulted in the realisation of the students' desired change. Demonstrative of transformative agency (Sannino, 2020), the Year 6 students' collective, scientifically grounded Lost Property Box procedure recommendations were taken up by the school as transformative change. The actioning of student voice as transformative agency (Sannino, 2020), that is students' desired positive change in their school community, is the focus of this paper, explicated in the following sections.

Research methodology

A design-based research methodology (Plomp, 2007) involving multiple stakeholders, including school leadership, teachers, researchers, and students, working closely in partnership is reported (Kirk & Ferguson, 2023). Building on previous research partnerships with the teachers (IMS Learning research participation) enabled trust and productive collaboration, especially given the extenuating circumstances of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the necessary prioritisation of not only student learning but also student safety and emotional needs (Kirk & Ferguson, 2023). Prioritisation of pedagogical responsivity to student needs and familiarity with this student-generative, multi-modal, discursive science practice (Kirk et al., 2023; Tytler et al., 2023) aided the enactment of student voice as impactful inquiry in this study. The adopted IMS Learning Pedagogy (Tytler et al., 2023) is grounded in the sociocultural perspectives that foreground the engagement of cultural tools to solve problems and draw reasoned conclusions. This semiotically-informed learning design and pedagogy focuses on students’ generative critical and creative thinking (Kirk et al., 2023) and, subsequently, student voice, illustrated in the findings. A responsive, student-centred inquiry that places a student-identified issue, ideas, reasoning, and meaning construction at the centre of students' learning experiences is reported.

Data collection and analysis

This research reports on student voice and agency by drawing on participant data from a responsive Year 6 ‘Mysterious Microorganisms’ teaching and learning sequence enactment. Multimodal artefacts were collected from three classes, approximately 70 students and three teachers. Data sources included lesson videos, individual and co-constructed teacher and student artefacts, including board images, student work samples (e.g. bookwork and constructions) and post-sequence semi-structured interviews. Open questions and structure enabled participants to lead discussions. Students flexibly engaged with the researcher's questions and interviewer's requests for elaboration or examples for clarification (Miller & Crabtree, 2004), e.g. ‘Can you tell me more about that?’ Or ‘can you give an example of this?’ Significantly, the interview questions did not directly relate to student voice or agency; the interviewer did not use these terms. Participants employed them, and they were identified as themes in the analysis.

A micro-ethnographic analysis was implemented, with interviews and associated multimodal interactions, including discourse, written language, and visual representations (Erickson, 2006) within and across classes. In keeping with the focus on student voice and agency in this paper, student final interviews provided the primary data source and were analysed first. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed with an iterative process (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The approach centred on identifying patterns of shared meaning, converging around a central concept or idea, to effectively weave together data into a coherent narrative (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Following interview analysis and aligned with a pragmatist perspective, multiple interactional modes of communication were analysed, including student work samples and correlating lesson video excerpts, with attention to socio-mediated insights of voice and agency. Finally, analysis of teacher and school leadership data sources, including reporting of the research outcomes, were analysed to add thickness and substantiate claims about outcomes (Patton, 2002). Data from these sources have been coordinated to illustrate reported student voice and agency outcomes. To address the overarching question: How can student voice be supported to enable student-desired transformative change? Lundy’s (2007) four identified research questions and framing are addressed.

  1. 1.

    Space: How can student voice be expressed?

  2. 2.

    Voice: How is voice enabled?

  3. 3.

    Audience: Who is listening?

  4. 4.

    Influence: How can voice be a catalyst for change?

Findings and discussion

Insights into student voice and agency, as reported by all research participants, students, teachers and school leadership, are pseudonymised in the following. Student voice and agency were articulated in response to the open questions: e.g. ‘Did anything surprise you doing the microorganisms sequence?’ or ‘Was there anything in particular that you found unexpected or rewarding doing the microorganisms sequence?’ Student impactful inquiry and scientifically grounded changes in the school, illustrative of transformative agency (Sannino, 2020), are unpacked in the following-through examination with Lundy's (2007) voice framing.

Space: How student voice can be expressed

To address how student voice can be expressed, space in the metaphorical sense as an opportunity for voice to be heard and responded to is examined. Opportunity and freedom to share thoughts, concerns, and ideas (Lundy, 2007) rely on trust as an antecedent. Student trust that their voice is welcome and valued is integral to them sharing their voice and a democratic teaching approach (Beane, 1997), evidenced by Gail’s (teacher) comment below.

There is that relationship... that kind of a positive culture in my classroom... one of my expectations is to share; they listen to each other, are open to collaborating with each other...

A classroom environment in which students' sharing of voice and collaboration is the expected norm is evident in Gail’s remarks above and fellow teacher Julies below. As described by Julie, opportunities for student voice and agency to pursue solutions required the responsive adaptation of the learning sequence to follow student voice.

The kids really wanted to find a solution to what they found [high microbial load] with the Lost Property Box... and that changed the whole sequence... we try and make sure that everyone has a chance to have a voice as well, and that’s how so many wonderful things happened... the kids changed the way the Lost Property works.

A community of inquiry approach (Gregory, 2022) foregrounding student voice as shared student thinking and ideas for positive change (OECD, 2019b; Vaughn, 2021) was enabled through deliberate pedagogical opportunities for student-led, collaborative inquiry. Students worked in small groups to choose different locations around the school to conduct their group's initial microbial investigations (22 different group locations, e.g. air purifiers, staffroom, toilet block, outside). They shared their inquiry results with their peers across all three classes, and the result was that they identified the issue of high microbial load in the Lost Property Box. The students recognised the health risk posed by possible microbial exposure as a relevant and real risk for them and their peers (Vaughn, 2021) that required action. They expressed a sense of responsibility through emotionally charged statements such as Eli’s; ‘We need to do something about it! – imagine how unhealthy the little kid's Lost Property Box must be; there are a lot of bacteria!’ The teachers and research team headed the students’ desire to find ways of minimising the microbial risk for all the students in the school.

Illustrative of how student voice can influence teaching and learning (Mitra, 2018), the lesson sequence was redesigned in response to the student's voice and agentic pursuit of solutions to an issue they identified in the school. Instead of moving on to the next lesson, there was space for students to design follow-up investigations into possible inhibitors of microbial growth in the Lost Property Box. Teachers' and researchers' responsiveness to student voice made it possible for students' decision-making that could influence school change (Lundy, 2007). The students tested their different ideas (e.g. ventilation, vinegar, bleach, etc.), analysed and shared the results across all the year six classes, and collaborated to make recommendations to minimise the potential health risks. The teacher's statement below connects lesson adjustment to purposefully following student inquiry as evidence of student voice and agency.

The buzz words student voice and agency… really comes through clearly with this science because the kids get to work together, make their decisions, and from that, depending on the data that we get from that, that can inform what we do, it changed the future lessons. With the Lost Property Box [student identified issue – high microbial load], it changed our whole way of how we operate at school [students revised Lost Property Box Procedures], and it was just wonderful for the kids...

Julie describes purposeful student decisions, identifying an issue, and pursuing solutions as enabling positive whole school outcomes and minimised microbial growth and health risks as student voice and agency. Her reference to student voice and agency as ‘buzz words’ illuminates school and policy (ACARA, 2022), prioritising student voice rather than a diminishing, ascribed performative justification. The authenticity of student voice and agency, as student-driven inquiry, was a source of pride throughout communications with the teachers. An authentic connection between authoritative policy expectations for student voice and agency, explicitly identified in the Victorian Department of Education Framework (Australia) for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO) (VicDET, 2023), and the enactment of authentic student voice as transformative outcomes in the school was a source of pride, that the students mirrored.

...we discovered that the Lost Property Boxes have a lot of germs/microorganisms, and nobody knew that before. That was a really big achievement... then we tested ways to make it better... and we changed the way it works...

Elsa's use of the collective pronoun ‘we’ illustrates student-driven collaborative inquiry, showcasing the year level's shared responsibility and drive in pursuing a solution.

Voice: How it was enabled

To delineate how student voice and transformative agency were enabled, Sannino’s (2020) requirements of transformative agency, concrete and material world considerations, and dialogic practices are unpacked in this section.

Drawing on the concrete and real—student-experienced world

Responding to the students’ lived experience of health risks (COVID-19 pandemic), students engaged in inquiry that was real and relevant to them (Mitman, 2019) to identify a real health issue (potentially dangerous bacterial and viral accumulation in their school environment). A leading epidemiologist and university colleague was invited to prepare a video about the role of an epidemiologist. She had earned a reputation as a trusted epidemiologist who now had a familiar face (and name) to the students as she had appeared in the media frequently throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic (Kirk & Ferguson, 2023). The video helped to establish a connection with the real world and the possibility of enacting change (Wessels, 2022). In interviews, students acknowledged that this inspired them to be able to investigate how to minimise the risk and make science-informed recommendations to decision-makers, as epidemiologists do. Students adopted an ‘expert-like’ role (Heathcote & Herbert, 1985), describing themselves as ‘epidemiologists in the school’ and taking up the identity of an epidemiologist to enact change within the school community.

We actually are epidemiologists in the school now.... we changed the school Lost Property Boxes... We made recommendations to Mr Roberts (pseudonym) and changed the school!

This statement evidences the collective nature of the pursuit of change directly affecting them (Thomson, 2010) and epistemic agency (Miller et al., 2018) as scientifically informed, purposeful inquiry. Students’ self-identification as ‘epidemiologists’ indicates students developing efficacy and capacity to enact desired change.

Collaboration and citizenship: A community of inquiry approach

Within a community of inquiry (Gregory, 2022) approach, students took up the role of an epidemiologist, sharing their group proposals within the context of a culminating event, ‘Scientists for Solutions Seminar’. A Socratic Seminar was adopted to sponsor student collaboration, sharing and questioning, which was discursive in nature. Students presented their findings, proposed solutions, and new Lost Property Box procedures. They then questioned each other, debated and collaborated (within and across the classes) to develop an agreed proposal. It is noted that the Mantel of the Expert approach (e.g. Raphael & White, 2021) and Socratic Seminar (e.g. Griswold, et al., 2017) within the interdisciplinary STEAM context required and encouraged purposeful and intentional learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Students actively and autonomously researched and represented their findings with attention to detail, including evidence and audience. The Socratic Seminar design was reported to ensure student voices were heard. In interviews, students reported that the Socratic Seminar approach enabled ‘all groups to be heard’ and that ‘all ideas were shared’ and considered as ‘we got to ask questions when we thought something wouldn’t work’.

The Scientists for Solutions Socratic Seminar was great because everyone could hear everyone’s ideas. Everyone shared. Because one group thought one idea worked really well, and other groups thought other ideas worked really well. Then, we could try to consider all of the ideas... come up with something that would work together...

Notably, the above statement was made by a student whom the class teacher described as shy and does not usually actively contribute to conversations in class. This is illustrative of a community of inquiry approach providing an intentional and safe invitation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020) for students to develop a voice and be heard. Student sharing was collaboratively and representationally supported.

Dialogic practices: Voice and being heard

Although ‘voice’ is implied as spoken, student voice encompasses more than spoken. It is actively situated within communities (e.g. classrooms) and societies (e.g. schools), encompassing spoken, written, and non-verbal communication (Vaughn, 2021). The multi-modal pedagogical approach (Kirk et al., 2023; Tytler, et al., 2023) enabled students to share and show their thinking representationally. Student recordings of microbial growth, graphs, diagrams, and posters assisted students in voicing their ideas and the collaborative review of evidence, and solution generation (Danvers, 2016). Drawing on representational evidence fuelled discussions. Students critically reviewed their data and posters throughout their presentations. In interviews, students commonly commented that representations, drawings and graphs of their findings and proposals helped them ‘see what was happening’ when sharing, ‘see what others did’, and ‘see others’ solutions’, supporting their collaboration and ascribing a solution to their scientific, real world identified issue. This exemplifies semiotics and the Community of Inquiry approach (Gregory, 2022) with student voice, the articulation of student thinking and ideas, championed to enable student agency (OECD, 2019b; Vaughn, 2021).

Socratic Seminar Dialogue: They need to change the rules. There needs to be a rule: ‘Don’t play in the Lost Property Boxes’, and the teachers need to make sure they [young students] don’t!

Corresponding Interview: We had to do something with the lost property box. We had to think critically and creatively about what we were going to do and to ensure students practice good hygiene and the little kids [early year levels] don’t play in the lost property boxes and get sick.

The above classroom dialogue (Fig. 1a) and corresponding student interview statement and poster (Fig. 1b) highlight student agentic responsibility (Mitman, 2019). Concern for younger students with advocacy to change and enforce rules to improve hygiene and the conditions of the Lost Property Box (e.g. cleaning procedures) illustrates student voice for change and creative agency for solutions (Leadbeater, 2017). Calls for the Principal, teacher and parent support to ensure younger children do not play in the property box indicate students’ confidence and sense of authorisation to share concerns and suggestions with adults regardless of traditional power structures (Mitra, 2018).

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Students' representation of the Lost Property Box issue and b Sharing solution ideas

Full size image

Audience: Who is listening? Everyone should know…

For the students’ sense of responsibility to be enacted for transformative action, students' concerns and suggestions needed to be heard by the relevant audience, those who could enact their recommended changes (Charteris & Smardon, 2019; Cook-Sather, 2020). Although the entire school could take up some of the recommendations (e.g. hand hygiene after touching the lost property box), the Lost Property Box procedural change (washing and monitoring) required the school Principal endorsement. This parallels the practices of an epidemiologist to make recommendations to ‘decision-makers’ on how to minimise health risks and is indicative of epistemic agency (Miller et al., 2018) and creative agency for solutions (Leadbeater, 2017).

The students commonly stated that everyone should know about the risks, that is, the high microbial load of the Lost Property Box. Hence, the Year 6 teachers asked the students, ‘What can you do to make your ideas about the Lost Property Box happen?’ This question empowered and authorised students to overcome perceived power barriers and actively seek audiences that could influence change. Students' suggestions included writing a letter and presenting at the school assembly.

I think it was helpful to be able to put all our findings into a letter and a speech, have it so we could present it to other people... so we could help the school, like make it a more hygienic place...and make it safer.

I did not expect it to go as far as being able to make a speech at assembly and write to the principal. I think it was really good that we got the opportunity and the experience because a lot of people could really hear our voice and our opinions so that we could help the school.

The above interview statements from students who did not present at the assembly demonstrate the collective agency and responsibility for minimising potential health risks and their surprise and satisfaction that they (the Year 6 s) could do so. Although only a small group could present at the assembly, a unified, collective, shared ownership was apparent. Though not elected leaders or student representative council students, the group that initially investigated the Lost Property Box microbial issue had the agentic positioning to inform the principal and make procedural change recommendations for the Year 6 cohort. It is noted that the school Principal and teachers enabled the students to affect change, Lost Property Box Procedure changes.

Influence: Voice is a catalyst for change—Beyond influence to impact

In this section, enablers for actioning student-desired change are unpacked, with the identification that, in this case, whole school change required the Principal’s (school decision-maker) endorsement. Following the student’s presentation on Assembly, the Principal exclaimed, ‘Now, that’s what I call student voice! How good was that?’ Beyond this statement, the principal endorsed and actioned the student's proposed changes to the Lost Property Box procedures (e.g. ventilation, cleaning, posters explaining hygiene, etc.) and championed the student’s achievement. The research project was reported in the School's Annual Review and school newsletter as evidence of student voice and agency for transformative outcomes.

This is another fine example of Student Voice at Forest Primary (pseudonym). The Year 6 students, working with Deakin University, have conducted group investigations on Mysterious Microorganisms in our school. This led to… the entire year level trialling different possible ‘interventions’ to reduce microorganisms... They wanted to make a difference in the school and help reduce possible risks to students. They have made recommendations and changes to the Lost Property Boxes.

Although there are some concerns that school audit processes can diminish student voice to performativity and accountability measures (Charteris and Smardon, 2019). In this case, acknowledging the student's experiences and achievements took a celebratory form, and pride that the outcomes were transformative for the students and school. The whole school uptake of the student-proposed lost property box procedural change demonstrates a commitment to transformative student voice and agency rather than a performative agency that is ‘just for show’ (Mayes et al., 2021) or to tick an audit box. Student implementation of real change and minimised health risks posed by the Lost Property Boxes positively affected the school.

Unlike much student voice enactment in school that influences school structures and decisions, this was not an experience or voice of a few chosen or elected students or the Student Representational Council (Mayes et al., 2019). It was a direct result of a transformative curriculum approach (Charteris & Snowdon, 2019) and the collective pursuit of the Year 6 student cohort. The entire Year 6 cohort investigated and collaborated to propose a solution to a student-discovered and cohort-recognised issue. In interviews, students from across all the Year 6 classes reported their involvement and sense of achievement, pride, and even surprise at what the year level had been able to achieve. The below statements represent the views of students who were not members of the initial ‘Lost Property Investigation Group’. The collective Year 6 cohort's agentic and collaborative contribution to the development of solutions enabled transformative change in the school is illustrated.

Even though we didn’t go up [present], the whole year level collaborated... together we created a letter for Mr Roberts (pseudonym) and the speech at the assembly. We told the whole school, showed evidence about what we did, and informed the school to be careful next time they use the Lost Property Box... It can stay that way now [changed Lost Property Box procedures] ... I’m pleased I did this in Year 6; we’ve done a lot... I’m proud of what we’ve done...

We actually made changes to the whole school – together, we changed how the Lost Property is done in the whole school!

These student statements recognise the collective pursuit of the whole cohort towards the Lost Property Box changes. They purported that their changes would remain, as they had installed posters, set up procedures and cleaning protocols, and informed the school community (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Students installing posters and actioning their Lost Property Box Procedural Changes

Full size image

Moving forward

Student responsibility in the immediate process of changing the Lost Property Box procedures was extended to consider the future. Illustrative of a citizenship perspective, students' concern for what would happen regarding the continuation of safer lost property box procedures when the Year 6 s went to high school was raised by the students. A school captain suggested that the School Representative Council or next year’s Year 6 s could oversee the Lost Property Box maintenance when they left the school. However, it is essential to note that teacher and school support is required to make and sustain change. The teachers stated in interviews and workshops that they planned to conduct further scientific inquiry; however, in the true sense of agency, it depended on student voice. That is student identification of an issue and student agency for solutions. In an interview, Julie suggested it was possible to ‘do it again’.

...it depends on the cohort of kids - they might come up with totally different ideas... than these kids. They took the microorganisms into that spin of the Lost Property Box. Then we started working on that; well, next year’s students might be on something totally different [different issue or concern], and that might bring a whole lot of interesting questions that might lead to something else to change...

Julie’s teacher statement clearly illustrates student-driven inquiry as impactful inquiry that honours the following of student voice (Vaughn, 2021) to enact student transformative agency, desired influence and change. One student in their interview stated that ‘this [student-driven transformative change] needs creative teaching’, while another said it requires ‘really listening to students’ ideas… and being able to see the possibilities’. Fundamentally, this demands responsiveness foremost to students' voice and context, coupled with teacher responsiveness and confidence to take pedagogical risks to follow student voice. Teacher Julie illustrates her preparedness to follow student voice in meaningful ways in her concluding interview statement.

...to follow their [students] voice, you never know what you’re going to get, but that’s what really makes it really exciting and meaningful, especially for the students!

Concluding thoughts

This paper illustrates student voice enactment as transformative agency and outcomes in a matter that mattered to them (Wessels, 2022). Building on literature that advocates for authentic student voice, this research affirms that student's voice has weight (Lundy, 2007). However, young people’s desire for positive change does not need to be a weight on young people’s shoulders alone (Sargeant & Gillett-Swan, 2019) or carried alone. It is an educative responsibility to uphold and elevate student voice to enable change. Furthermore, student's voice needs to be supported to find bearing; that is, recognised positioning, direction, and a path forward to enact desired positive change.

In this study, students were not positioned as bystanders in their lived world – not only affected but also able to affect positively. In an era filled with wicked problems and socio-ecological challenges, it is the responsibility of teachers and education to enact a responsive curriculum. This paper discusses how children are not only influenced by societal challenges but also possess the ability to shape them (Wessels, 2022). It presents an ethical and pedagogical stance, advocating for the generative enactment and following of student voice as impactful inquiry. Democratic schooling approaches (Beane, 1997) that give space for and follow student voice as student-driven inquiry have been demonstrated to enable transformative outcomes. Experiences closely following the COVID-19 pandemic school reopening have been presented to reveal the potential for students' transformative agency (Sannino, 2020), which is desired transformative influence in their school community. Through enacting impactful inquiry in primary school and students' partnership in decision-making (e.g. Mitra, 2018), the students actioned positive change within their school policy and community (e.g. Cook-Sather, 2020).

This illustration of honouring student voice (Vaughn, 2021) through a transformative enactment of a microorganism sequence during the COVID-19 pandemic illuminates how, even in challenging times, students can generatively impact their lives and the lives of others in primary science. Although current curriculum demands, reporting constraints, and teaching pressures serve to limit teachers' flexible, transformative curriculum enactment, the possibility for impactful inquiry in primary school has been demonstrated. However, there is much work that needs to be done. This paper reports one student cohort experience; more student positioning in this way (for these students and others) is required. Ongoing research and the adoption of impactful inquiry to follow student voice for generative, scientifically informed change is needed. This paper is intended to contribute to the further enactment of impactful inquiry for transformative agency and outcomes in primary school and, potentially, secondary school. It is the responsibility of education to heed and respond to student voice, instilling in them both the capacity to act and positively influence their lived world and the agency and efficacy to do so (OECD, 2019b). Researchers, teachers, and school principals are encouraged to engage with student voice in this way, through impactful inquiry. This approach is advocated to enable student voice to find bearing, which encompasses recognised positioning, direction, and a path forward to enact transformative change that has a desired positive impact in matters that matter to students now and into the future.