1 Background and rationale

The COVID-19 pandemic forced educators and students to adapt to new modes of learning—distant, remote, and online. According to the UNESCO report by Hoskins and Donbavand [41], the pandemic is seen as a major disruption to education. They also highlight the negative consequences of the sudden shift, emphasizing how the lack of educational opportunities and learning affected students' voices and choices (SVC) during this period.

From policymaking, educational research, and reform to classroom practices, interest in students' voices and choices has expanded enormously over the years [18, 27, 55, 64]. As a result, the concept has ushered in numerous shades of meaning depending on how such a term is used and who is using it [59, 64].

Student voice represents the values, opinions, beliefs, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds of individual students and groups within a school [17], while student choice refers to the empowerment of learners to make good choices about their learning experiences, encouraging greater student motivation and interest. It includes instructional methods and techniques that are shaped by student choices, interests, passions, and ambitions.

The following are the manifestations of SVC: participating in school governance where students serve on school boards or committees so that they can contribute to decision-making; influencing instructional decisions where students might help select educational materials or have a say in the content and methods used in their classrooms; and expressing opinions through platforms like school newspapers, blogs, or surveys, students can share their thoughts and experiences. The promotion of student voice can lead to increased engagement, a stronger sense of community, and more personalized learning experiences [42].

SVC was considered one of the bases for educational policymaking in the different areas all over the world. The student voice actions and initiatives have become the foundation for policy development and strategies [57]. For example, in England, as an education policy initiative, promoting personalized learning can be interpreted as a rights-based student voice. The primary objective of this pursuit was to ensure that instructors in schools and classrooms cater to the distinct learning needs of each student [25, 37].

Finneran et al. [26] discussed the dynamic shift of educational policymaking in the development of policies regarding inequalities in the school. Accordingly, students’ involvement in decision-making directly affects them as well as their school. The British Educational Act of 1998 [56] said that it provided opportunities for student voice in Student Councils, understood primarily to represent students in school affairs, in school management, staff, and parent conventions for the benefit the school and the students. In addition, this Education Act introduced the concept of a partnership and the representative nature of the council, especially in dialog, discussion, and consultations on issues about student learning [27].

While the discussion of policy sets limits the function of the student voice through student councils, the student voice is likewise implemented in curriculum design. In a democratic world, the building blocks of education lie in the context of the teacher-student relationship. It could be echoed in the curricula that shadow students' goals and interests [30]. Awareness of the "what and how" children learn makes educators more effective in planning and preparing their lessons [36]. Thiessen [68] added that educators should actively engage students in shaping their learning, involving them in decision-making, improving the syllabi, and curriculum development. Hence, schools should not hand students a prepackaged form of learning to ensure students' meaningful participation. However, teachers and students should be co-authors in the ongoing curriculum development process. Researchers can argue that educational reforms can be practiced by including student voice in syllabus design, considering student needs and interests [61]. Baroutsis et al. [4] state that student voice can help build and shape the curriculum and rules. Seale [62] concludes that SVC in higher education concerns inquiring about student experiences, recognizing, and comprehending students' perspectives, engaging in a contemplative analysis of the potential consequences for practical application., and providing opportunities to express and be heard.

The article, "How Implementing Voice & Choice Can Improve Student Engagement", by Green and Harrington [34], discussed the concept of student voice promotes student agency, which refers to students' capacity to actively participate in the formation and development of their own learning experiences through collaborative efforts in designing a personalized learning plan or pathway. In shaping and designing their learning, students are encouraged to express their ideas and comprehend freely, develop, and design their project or unit, establish goals, progress monitoring, and assume leadership responsibilities during confabulation presentations or symposiums.

Allowing children to exercise their right of voice and choice grants them the ability to engage in the process of finding a mutually agreeable compromise [51]. One of the most common choices that children face is the selection of the selection of peers for collaborative work [58]. By choosing their group members, they use different social skills that would help them grow as people persons. Other choices that students may encounter are, preferences for the mode of content acquisition, the approach they will use for content assimilation, the timing of content engagement, and the methods employed to highlight acquired knowledge. The use of SVC can enhance student engagement.

The benefits of SVC practice include promotion of student engagement, develops democratic minds, and challenges the existing power structures in traditional education. Additionally, students' involvement in their learning leads to respect and affection with others [7, 19] and a feeling of value [35]. SVC consequently encourages collaborative learning [53], active participation and engagement [28, 49], learner autonomy and power [54], and student achievement [31].

Despite the rich literature on SVC and its benefits, students are often perceived as individuals chosen for token representation and as passive recipients of instructions and decisions made by the educational institution [67]. Many teachers need help adapting to changes in power balances, and others are reluctant to engage in student voice work out of fear of losing power in their schools [54]. One of the primary obstacles faced in the implementation of SVC is the intricate responsibility of enabling the expression of student perspectives that have been suppressed or misrepresented due to oppressive cultural and educational structures [23], as well as the significant transformation in the mode of learning resulting from the pandemic [41].

According to the Commission on Higher Education [16] Memorandum Order No. 4, which pertains to the Guidelines in the Implementation of Flexible Learning, the Higher Education Institution is granted the autonomy to use discretion in choosing from a range of different instructional methods that are now accessible. The university can use in-person learning and provide the minimum competencies and intended learning outcomes. In addition, the memorandum defines flexible learning as a student-centered approach that gives learners flexibility in their learning of content, schedules, access, and assessment using digital and non-digital tools. The memorandum likewise provides guidelines for learner management.

Despite the provisions and guidelines in the Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order and studies that identify the benefits of flexible learning [29, 40, 56], several problems with the conduct of flexible learning still need to be solved. Some problems include its negative impact on mental health [46, 47]. Rotas and Cahapay [60] argue that the challenges of flexible learning include imprecise learning content, overzealous instructional activities, insufficient scaffolding, and subpar peer collaboration, among other factors. Caga Belgica et al. [10] conducted a study that likewise identified a lack of motivation and poor comprehension and retention as personal and psychological barriers to effective, flexible learning. Aguilera-Hermida [1] likewise claims decreased cognitive engagement, attention, concentration, and motivation among students in a flexible learning classroom. Although these studies concern students, they have yet to explore the possibility of involving students in the planning and designing phase to address the concerns raised. The issue of whether the students can give their opinions and contribute to major decisions is still a challenge [48]. Interestingly, several studies that investigated students' voice in distance learning were primarily concerned with perceptions [3, 9, 20], preferences [44], and acceptability [8].

Even with several studies by researchers on SVC, there is no study that identified the strategies used by teachers to encourage students to voice out their opinions and contribute to major decisions not just in the classroom but also in the development of school policies and academic curriculum. The challenges emanating from the remote learning situation during the pandemic made it difficult for the teachers to motivate their students to actively engage and contribute into the learning process which might have suppressed SVC. It is the objective of this research to find out how extensive the SVC practices are applied during the virtual classes and what activities and strategies were used to encourage learner engagement and autonomy through SVC. The research problems that the authors seek answers for are: what activities and strategies were being used to encourage learner engagement and autonomy during remote learning, what specific lesson topics keep them engaged and motivated, and what strategies do students want to keep them engaged and encourage SVC? Specifically, it seeks to determine the topics, activities, and strategies that are being utilized by teachers to promote SVC in the virtual classroom to keep students motivated and engaged and able to come out of their shell and contribute to the decision-making process in the school.

2 Methodology

2.1 Subjects of the study

To answer the questions raised, 335 respondents enrolled in a GPCOM (Purposive Communication) course during the pandemic from a premier university in Northern Philippines consented to participate in the study. GPCOM, or purposive communication, is a three-unit course offered in all higher education institutions, as stipulated in Commission on Higher Education [15] Memorandum Order No. 20 of the Philippines. The classes during the pandemic were all remote and the engagement was purely online. Classes were conducted through video conferencing using applications that allow teachers to discuss their lessons online and engagement was purely through this method. Students were able to recite and discuss with their teachers and classmates by activating their video cameras and microphones to be heard by everyone in the video conferencing application.

2.2 Data gathering procedure

The researchers gathered data through a self-made survey questionnaire which was sent to students to answer through a forms application. The survey questionnaire had a consent form that students enrolled in a GPCOM course for the second semester of AY 2021–2022 were required to fill in to ensure informed consent to provide data for the research. Additionally, the researchers discussed the study's objectives, technical terms, and how the data that they will provide will be used and processed.

The survey questionnaire comprised of twenty items that the respondents will answer using a on a five-point Likert scale that provided data on the extensiveness of SVC practices and teacher strategies. In addition, the researchers included two open-ended questions to get information about student choices. These two open-ended questions will enhance their quantitative answers in the first part of the data gathering instrument.

The data gathering instrument went through validity evaluation using content validation test and expert review.

2.3 Data analysis

The data gathered were analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify the strategies, topics, and activities that encourage SVC during virtual classes as well as the strategies employed by the teachers to encourage student engagement and autonomy.

3 Findings and discussion

To answer the research problems, the following data from responses of students of a GPCOM class during the COVID19 pandemic during the second semester of AY 2021–2022 were gathered and analyzed. The classes were remote and conducted online through video conferencing applications. The study used frequency statistics, measures of central tendency, and ranking to identify the strategies mostly used by teachers. The research also used qualitative methods to support the results of the survey.

From Table 1, the most often used strategies by teachers in the class during the pandemic to engage students are providing spaces for inquiry (allowing students to ask questions about lessons and tasks) regarding the lesson whether synchronously or asynchronously; using real life examples like personal experience, articles, videos, and research to make the lesson relevant to students; permitting students to express their thoughts and needs in relation to the lesson; using multimedia such as movies and videos other than power point slides to keep students engaged; and making the classroom a collaborative space by allowing students to talk and join in on the discussion.

Table 1 Teacher strategies to encourage SVC
Full size table

Teachers allowing space for inquiry is an active student-centered process [5]. The efficacy of the inquiry technique employed in Philosophy for Children has been substantiated in fostering students' generation of higher-order thinking questions [39], hence, facilitating their active engagement in listening and exchanging their personal experiences with others [21] to explore the answers to their questions, to clarify, and reason out their point of view [12].

According to Valerio [69], the level of choice and control granted by a teacher in classroom learning experiences has a substantial influence on learners' engagement. The author asserts that when students opt for themes or demonstrate the acquisition of novel knowledge, skills, and understandings, educators give them ownership. Sternberg and Williams [66] likewise posit that if a student is given a chance to express ideas and teachers facilitate discussion for students to express more and ensure that the learning experience elicits significant enthusiasm, students will feel connected. Learning is also significant, as students are incentivized to satisfy their interests and curiosities.

3.1 Course topics that foster SVC

Students identified course topics that they consider as encouragement for them to engage in class during the pandemic. Good lectures can effectively capture and maintain the attention of their audience. According to Kozma et al. [45], the criticism directed at lecturing may be attributed, in part, to the inadequate execution of this instructional approach by teachers rather than its inherent potential effectiveness.

The central element in making lectures work is to engage students. However, content-driven, teacher-centered lectures promote intellectual passivity in students. As a result, students memorize facts to pass exams rather than fostering the ability to transfer knowledge to novel contexts, problem-solving capabilities, or even the drive to acquire more knowledge [43]. The participants deem that the above lessons and activities allow them to select and express their content through various modes. As seen in Table 2, 28.90% of the participants consider The Basics of Public Speaking as a topic that would encourage SVC among students.

Table 2 Course topics for SVC engagement
Full size table

3.2 Preferred strategies

One of the purposes of SVC is to consider the preferences of students regarding how the lessons are to be delivered. This section identified the preference of students with the strategies that teachers use to keep them engaged and encourage SVC. Among the many strategies, 63.10% of the participants preferred active learning. Active learning requires students to participate in meaningful learning activities and think critically about their actions [6]. The core element entails incorporating activities into the conventional lecture format to foster active participation and involvement from students. Numerous proponents of active learning claim that the efficacy of this pedagogical approach is closely linked to the level of student engagement and focus exhibited during traditional lecture-style instruction. According to Siegenthaler and Caneday [63], the study conducted by Wankat (n.d.) examines the duration of a student's attention span during a lecture, revealing that it is around fifteen minutes. Hartley and Davies [38] confirmed the findings of the Wankat study, indicating a significant decline in student attention and subsequent reduction in lecture material recall (Table 3).

Table 3 Teaching strategies preferred by respondents
Full size table

According to the findings of Bonwell and Eison [6], active learning has been shown to have a positive impact on student attitudes as well as their cognitive abilities in terms of thinking and writing skills. McKeachie and Svinicki [50] also cite evidence that it surpasses traditional lectures regarding material retention, motivating students to study further, and developing thinking skills. Felder et al. [24] recommended that active learning is one of Chickering and Gamson's "Seven Principles for Good Practice." [14].

3.3 Classroom activities to keep students engaged

The students were asked about their choice of classroom activities to keep them engaged. The respondents' input to the open-ended questions was coded, and themes were designed based on the codes. Table 4 presents the codes and the generated themes.

Table 4 Codes and Generated Themes from Students Responses Regarding Preferred Classroom Activities for Engagement
Full size table

3.3.1 Collaboration

Students who answered pair work, group work, and similar terms prefer collaborative work, as this not only keeps them engaged but also motivates them. Collaboration authorizes learners to engage, share knowledge, co-create with, and learn from others online and offline [13]. Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the implementation of collaborative learning strategies has a positive impact on the cultivation of students' cognitive abilities at a higher level and contributes to the enhancement of their self-assurance and self-worth [32].

3.3.2 Interactive gamification

Students who responded with the term’s games, quiz, interactive, and competition chose interactive gamification or game-based learning. It is equally interesting to note this preference, as the surveyed learners are Gen Z, well-known and highly considered digital natives. According to Smiderle et al. [65], the implementation of gamification has the potential to increase students' engagement levels, comparable to how games encourage skill development and optimize the learning process. According to Dichev and Dicheva [22], the integration of game design features in learning environments, known as gamification, has been identified as a promising technique in education. They argue that gamification can enhance learners' motivation and engagement.

3.3.3 Real-life connection

The respondent's choice, identified as another strategy, involves making real-life connections. Although classes are conducted virtually, the students prefer something they can relate to within the real world. Learners who need to see the relevance of their lesson tend to become bored, stop listening, and disengage. Students are more likely to exhibit a higher level of engagement when the content taught in the classroom is connected to their real-world experiences and everyday lives [2]. Yalçin et al. [70] point out that incorporating real-life connections into lessons helps students learn and appreciate the content.

3.3.4 Class discussion

Although class discussion is a norm, students who prefer this activity claim to learn better and are more engaged when lessons are being discussed; conducting synchronous classes allows for consultation and discussion. Discussing has numerous educational advantages as it enables students to engage with knowledge instead of passively accepting it. Different skills are required for effectively guiding a debate instead of delivering a traditional lecture. The primary aim of a discussion is to foster critical thinking among students regarding the subject matter of the course [11], enabling them to exchange perspectives and glean valuable insights.

3.3.5 Self-directed learning

Despite the high percentage of students' choice of collaboration, respondents likewise choose self-directed learning. The term refers to the ability of students to work independently on their tasks with flexibility and be in control of their learning of content and activities [52]. The necessity of flexibility requires learners to actively observe and modify their behavior and activities concerning their learning environment [71]. According to Geng et al. [33], self-directed learners actively participate in many learning activities, including information acquisition, planning, and evaluation of their learning endeavors.

4 Conclusion

Even with consultation with students before implementing flexible learning, student voice and choice in the GPCOM virtual classroom are present. Teachers, through classroom strategies, initiate students' voices. These provide space for inquiry, allowing self-expression through preferred language, real-life examples, multimedia, and inviting students to negotiate. Teachers must fortify and continue the practices that foster student voice and choice. Considering the strategies that fail to promote students' voices, the GPCOM teachers should find ways to address these concerns, as they are deemed barriers to learning.

On the other hand, student choices for strategies are active learning, the use of technology, and active class discussion. Furthermore, in terms of choice for activities that keep learners motivated and engaged, the participants prefer collaboration, interactive gamification, real-life connection, class discussion, and self-directed learning. Although student choice was likewise evident in the strategies, learners expressed their choice to keep them motivated and engaged. GPCOM teachers may review the identified choice by learners for their learning packet updates and revisions as well as the delivery of lessons.

McIntyre's [49] article claims that educators must provide guidance and support to draw connections to learning goals. With this understanding, student voice and choice must not be misconstrued due to the absence of teacher involvement.

5 Recommendations

The researchers recognize some limitations of this study. Although large enough to generalize student voice and choice, the sample size of learners may reflect different perspectives and practices of a population from a private higher education institution in the northern Philippines. In addition, the sample included only those enrolled in a GPCOM course for Batch 2 and not those enrolled in the course in its previous Batch offering.

Additionally, future studies may consider using a focus group approach in surveying student voices and choices in the virtual classroom. Future researchers may likewise investigate these concepts in other courses or programs.