RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION, 2018

VOL. 36, NO. 1, 111129

https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353963

A theoretical understanding of the literature on student voice

in the science classroom
Katie Laux
Department of Teaching and Learning, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: Incorporating student voice into the science classroom Student voice; student
has the potential to positively impact science teaching and learning. perceptions; student
However, students are rarely consulted on school and classroom perspectives; science
matters. This literature review examines the effects of including education
student voice in the science classroom.
Purpose: The purpose of this literature review was to explore the
research on student voice in the science classroom. This review
includes research from a variety of science education sources and was
gathered and analyzed using a systematic literature review process.
Design and methods: I examined articles from a variety of educational
journals. I used three key terms as my primary search terms: student
voice, student perceptions, and student perspectives. The primary search
terms were used in conjunction with qualifiers that included science
education, science curriculum, student emergent curriculum, student
centered curriculum, and science. In order to be included in the literature
review, articles needed to be published in peer-reviewed, academic
journals, contain clearly defined methods (including quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed methods), include research conducted in K
through 12 classrooms, include the term ‘student voice’, and focus
specifically on science. I included articles from a variety of science
classrooms including general middle school science, science-specific
after-school programs, secondary science classrooms in a variety
of countries, and physics, biology, and aerospace classrooms. No
restrictions were placed on the country in which the research was
conducted or on the date of the research.
Conclusions: The results of the literature review process uncovered
several themes within the literature on student voice. Student voice
research is situated within two main theoretical perspectives, critical
theory and social constructivism, which I used as the main themes to
structure my findings. I also identified subcategories under each main
theme to further structure the results. Under critical theory, I identified
three subcategories: determining classroom topics, developing
science agency, and forming identities. Under social constructivism,
I discovered four subcategories: forming identities, incorporating
prior knowledge and experience, communicating interest in topics
and classroom activities, and improving student–teacher relationship.
The research supports that allowing students a voice in the classroom
can lead them to feel empowered, able to construct their own
meaning and value in science, demonstrate increased engagement
and achievement, and become more motivated. I conclude students

CONTACT Katie Laux klaux2@mail.usf.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
112 K. LAUX

should be allowed a voice in the science classroom and to continue to

ignore these voices would be a disservice to students and educators
alike.

Introduction
The purpose of this review was to explore the literature on student voice in science education.
Cook Sather (2006) defines voice as ‘a term that asks us to connect the sound of a student
speaking not only with those students experiencing meaningful, acknowledged presence,
but also with their having power to influence analyses of, decisions about, and practices in
school’ (363). Furman and Calabrese Barton (2006) define student voice as a ‘dynamic con-
struct, closely related to how one learns or constructs new identities within a context’ (669).
Having a voice means one has power, presence, and agency and they can speak their mind,
be heard by others, and have an influence on outcomes (Cook Sather 2006). Students have
a unique voice and when allowed to use this voice, they are able to present different mean-
ings to make more authentic connections in science (Arvola and Lundegard 2012). Voices
can be diverse and to allow them to be heard is to allow for multiple perspectives to be
represented in the classroom (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011). Student voice can
be used as a method of gaining feedback or allowing students to express their opinions
about teaching and learning (Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Logan and Skamp 2008). Student
voice can also be used in order to examine general aspects of teaching and learning (Toplis
2012). For the purposes of this paper, I considered student voice as a way to empower stu-
dents and allow them to construct meaning and knowledge in science.
Although rarely consulted on matters within schools and classrooms, research supports
the idea that students are able to express logical ideas and opinions about the science
classroom (Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Harwell 2000). Students are proud to share their ideas
when asked and they want opportunities to do so (Harwell 2000). Without the voices of the
students, learning environments will likely fall short of their expectations and needs (Nicaise,
Gibney, and Crane 2000).

Rationale
Student voice has been a neglected ideal within schools and classrooms (especially in the
United States) (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). This neglect is the result of policy-makers
and educators ignoring the ones that are often the most impacted by educational decisions:
the students (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012;
Osborne and Collins 2001).
The literature on student voice suggests allowing a place for student voice in the science
classroom can create more empowering opportunities for student learning and by express-
ing their voice, students can find empowerment in the choices they make in science
(Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). Empowerment may be defined as students exhibiting
autonomy in their learning process, competence in science, and relatedness with students
and other teachers (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015). In addition, empowerment may
include interest in, engagement with, and motivation in learning science topics (Jenkins
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 113

and Pell 2006). Furthermore, empowerment has been defined as the ability of students to
make decisions and take actions to better their lives and the lives of those around them
(Mallya et al. 2012).
One way educators can help students find value and meaning in science is by allowing
them to express their voices in the classroom (Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Furman and
Calabrese Barton 2006). Unfortunately, the science curriculum is based largely on adults’
opinions of what would be meaningful to students (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015). However,
in order for students to be successful in the long-term learning of science content, researchers
maintain that they must find meaning in it (Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Furman and Calabrese
Barton 2006). In the case of science learning, meaning may be found through the compre-
hension of science concepts and the connection of these concepts with previous ideas
(Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016). Additionally, whether meaning is effectively constructed may
indicate the extent to which information in science is personally and socially relevant to a
student (Mallya et al. 2012; Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000). Students bring knowledge and
ideas to the science classroom and then the situation may influence the making of meaning
(Rop 1999). Therefore, constructing meaning in science may also require a connection
between students’ out-of-school lives and interests (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006).

Theoretical perspectives
Two main theoretical perspectives emerged from the literature review as themes and are
used to frame the discussion of student voice in research: critical theory and social construc-
tivism. These theoretical perspectives became my major themes because both perspectives
are important to how students construct meaning and find empowerment through learning
science.
Within critical theory, reality is driven by power and power relations and to acquire knowl-
edge, the dynamics of power must be uncovered and understood (Paul 2005). The overar-
ching goal of critical theory is to challenge oppression (Paul 2005). One role of critical theory
is to question who has the power in certain relationships and to what extent education is
meaningful to individuals (Basu 2008). Promoting student voice is one way suggested in the
science education literature for meeting these goals of critical theory (Basu 2008).
Constructivism requires the learner to piece together reality by interacting with the phys-
ical world (Paul 2005). Knowledge is a dynamic product and considered meaningful, the
result of interacting with the world (Crotty 2013; Paul 2005). Social constructivism specifically
requires one to interact with others in a particular context (such as school) (Paul 2005).
Oftentimes, student voice research is grounded in sociocultural perspectives of learning and
cognition in which learning is a social process (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006).
Constructivist learning theories are central in science because it is assumed students come
to the science classrooms with previous ideas and experiences (Darby 2005).

Literature review procedure

Literature review framework
I explored the literature on student voice in the science classroom using a systematic liter-
ature review process. This literature review process included several steps:
114 K. LAUX

(1) I established a purpose for this literature review in order to guide the development
of key search terms.
(2) I developed key search terms based on the language in my purpose statement. I
developed inclusion criteria based on the purpose of the review and my preliminary
article search.

(a) Key search terms

Initially, the only key term I used to search was student voice. I developed other key
terms based on language in the recovered journal articles. These terms include
student perceptions and student perspectives. The primary search terms were used
in conjunction with qualifiers that included science education, science curriculum,
student emergent curriculum, student centered curriculum, and science.

(b) Inclusion criteria

In order to be included in the literature review, articles needed to fit my predeter-
mined inclusion criteria. First, they needed to be published in peer-reviewed, aca-
demic journals and contain clearly defined methods because I wanted to focus on
literature that had examined the effects of incorporating student voice into the
science classroom rather than speculating on the outcomes. I chose articles based
on any methods including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods in order to
gain a multifaceted idea of research on this topic. I included articles focused specif-
ically on science as I was interested in examining student voice in the context of the
science classroom. I included articles from a variety of science classrooms including
general middle school science, science-specific after-school programs, secondary
science classrooms in a variety of countries, and physics, biology, and aerospace
classrooms. I only included research conducted in K through 12 classrooms but did
not limit the country in which the study was completed. Finally, I only included
articles that specifically referenced student ‘voice’ to avoid any assumptions on
whether the authors were contributing to the student voice literature.

(c) Exclusion criteria

I chose to exclude certain studies based on the following exclusion criteria. First, I
did not include articles focused on higher education because I wanted to keep the
focus on education that typically allows fewer choices for students. Studies were
eliminated if they were not student-centered (such as studies that only examined
teacher voices in the classroom). I also excluded literature reviews because I wanted
to examine and make my own interpretations of the research on student voice.

(3) I conducted an extensive search of journal articles in relevant databases and in

selected science education journals using the key terms developed in step two.
I conducted my review of literature in three stages: database search, key journal
search, and bibliographic search. These three search stages generated a total of 32
articles for final data analysis and synthesis.
(a) Database search
I conducted an electronic search for key words through the ERIC, Education Source,
Find It!, and JSTOR databases. Due to the focus of the article being on science
education, the following terms were used in combination: student voice, student
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 115

perceptions, OR student perspectives AND science education, science curriculum, stu-

dent emergent curriculum, student centered curriculum, OR science. This electronic
search generated 29 articles after inclusion criteria were applied and duplicates
were excluded.
(b) Key journal search
I searched through key science education journals issue by issue. The journals
included in the search that contained relevant articles were the following: Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, Journal of Science Education and Technology, and
Journal of Science Teacher Education. The key journal search generated two additional
articles after I applied inclusion criteria and excluded duplicates.

(c) Bibliographic search

In the bibliographic search phase, I examined the references of articles retrieved in
the two prior search stages. Google Scholar was used to locate these articles. The
bibliographic search phase produced one additional study for review after inclusion
criteria were applied and duplicates were excluded.

(4) I selected studies by reviewing their titles and abstracts for relevance to student
voice and the inclusion criteria. I also searched for the term ‘voice’ in each article
and if it was not found, the article was eliminated. Articles were saved and set aside
for further review.
(5) Next, I read and analyzed the articles for relevance to student voice and the inclu-
sion criteria. As I read through the articles, I synthesized the study findings through
an organized interpretive process. As the studies were read in detail, key research
design features and findings were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. I documented
information about the theoretical orientation, purpose, participants and setting,
data and methods used, major findings, limitations, and potential for future studies.
I looked through the information in the spreadsheet to identify themes in order
to organize and structure the literature review. First, I determined the research on
student voice fell into one of the two theoretical perspective categories: social con-
structivism or critical theory. Subcategories within my major themes emerged by
further examining the purposes of the research articles.

Results
In this section, I describe the results of my literature review search. Two major theoretical
frameworks were used as the primary themes for this section: critical theory and social
constructivism. My findings are organized first by these two frameworks and then by sub-
categories to further examine the themes within the topic of student voice. The themes and
subcategories are represented in Figures 1 and 2.

Critical theory
Critical theory was used as one of the main themes in which to organize this literature review.
Many authors either specifically referenced critical theory as the theoretical perspective they
used to frame their research (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Basu et al. 2009; Basu 2008) or
116 K. LAUX

Figure 1. Theme of critical theory and subcategories. This figure shows the organization of subcategories
under the major theme of critical theory.

I determined the framework myself based on the similarities to other research and the defi-
nition of critical theory (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015, 2012; Mallya et al. 2012). Under this
heading, three subcategories were identified. These subcategories include determining
classroom topics, developing science agency, and forming identities.

Determining classroom topics

Most educational reforms and curricular decisions are made without consulting the individ-
uals that will be impacted the most: the students (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012).
Furthermore, the classroom is a power struggle in which the teacher largely makes decisions
about classroom activities (Basu 2008). Utilizing student voices to determine classroom topics
can lead students to feel empowered and find meaning in science.
To address the concerns of critical theory and balance the power struggle in the classroom,
some authors suggest there should be shared responsibility between teachers and students
for learning in science (Basu 2008; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015). For example, Basu (2008)
explored how five 9th-grade physics students in New York City could successfully develop
their own lesson plan in order to share some of the responsibility with the teacher in a physics
classroom. The findings of this study showed that through the expression of their voice, the
students designed lessons that creatively used school resources to contribute meaningfully
to the classroom (Basu 2008).
When discussing student-centered reform, it is important to realize students’ ideas and
interests may not be the same as the teachers’ priorities about what to teach (Hagay and
Baram-Tsabari 2012). For example, Hagay and Baram-Tsabari (2012) found when asked about
their current biology curriculum, many Israeli students saw it as ‘boring’ and wanted the
opportunity to change it – and this was true even if they had chosen biology as their high
school focus. In addition, students provided ideas of how their interests could be incorpo-
rated into the classroom and still meet the curricular requirements (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari
2012). They concluded students should be considered capable partners in which to consult
about what should be taught in the science classroom (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012). In
a follow-up study, the same authors introduced the concept of a ‘shadow curriculum’, which
allowed students to express their interests in the form of questions and for the teacher to
incorporate these questions into their lesson plans, even those on topics not covered by the
curriculum (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015).
Seiler (2011) developed a new way to think about high school curriculum that is situated
in students’ lived experiences and has room for their voices yet still meets the demands of
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 117

science standards. By studying students in two high schools in Philadelphia over the course
of three years, Seiler (2011) developed a method to incorporate students’ voices into the
science curriculum. Data were collected from both a science lunch group and a semester-long
biology course (Seiler 2011). Students developed questions based on their prior knowledge
and the teacher used these questions in conjunction with the required science curriculum
(Seiler 2011). The results of the research showed increased student engagement, focus, and
emotional energy toward science (Seiler 2011).

Developing science agency

Agency can be defined as ‘enacting both small- and large-scale changes in personal and
community domains, based on one’s beliefs and goals’ (Basu 2008, 884). Agency in science
requires having a critical understanding of the role science plays in the world around us and
how scientific ideas can be used to make changes for the better (Calabrese Barton and Tan
2010). Research on student voice as related to science agency demonstrates students are
able to make connections between science and the real world and can use this knowledge
to work in ways to improve the world (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010).
Basu (2008) found by designing their own lesson plans, high school physics students
developed science agency by enhancing their epistemic and positional authority. Epistemic
authority is considered ‘subject expertise’ and positional authority depends on the student’s
‘social positioning in their community’ (Basu 2008, 891). For example, Basu (2008) determined
students demonstrated epistemic authority by developing lesson plans based on their prior
knowledge and their views of themselves as experts. Furthermore, students demonstrated
positional authority by taking the lesson plan assignment seriously in order to change the
way teachers viewed them (Basu 2008). In a related study, Basu et al. (2009) incorporated
two students as co-researchers to study the development of science agency in a high school
physics class. The two students became agents of change at the school because they devel-
oped expertise in their topics and challenged stereotypes of who can do science (Basu
et al. 2009).
By studying middle school students in New York City, Mallya et al. (2012) discovered
students took information about food options available to them and made better nutritional
choices such as drinking more water and eating less junk food. Furthermore, they increased
their science agency by using their voices to inform others about food deserts and healthy
eating habits and could think critically about ways in which they may be able to change
their communities to include more fresh food and healthier places to eat (Mallya et al. 2012).
In another study, Calabrese Barton and Tan (2010) used lessons on the urban heat island
(UHI) effect to study how students involved with a summer program at a local community
center took these lessons and utilized their voices in order to create a video to make people
aware of this topic. They found students used their voices in order to challenge the roles
they typically have in the classroom (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010). The students took the
lead in creating the documentary and used it to educate people in the community, thereby
using their voices to develop their science agency (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010).

Forming identities
Part of forming one’s identity is responding to social or power relations in a particular context
(Basu 2008). As part of critical theory is related to addressing power relations, some of the
research on forming identities belongs in this section.
118 K. LAUX

Basu (2008) determined students use their voices in order to develop their epistemic
(subject expertise) and positional (within schools and communities) authority while creating
lessons reflective of their identities as scientists. In another study, Basu et al. (2009) linked
the ideas of science agency and identity formation by claiming critical science agency can
emerge as the expression of identity, using physics as a foundation for change. One of the
students identified himself as a scientific thinker by taking on the role of a robotics expert
and then building social networks in his school by teaching his topic to other students (Basu
et al. 2009). The other student identified herself as an expert physics student who could guide
her peers and challenge stereotypes about urban minority youth in science (Basu et al. 2009).

Social constructivism
Social constructivism was the second main theme used to organize this literature review.
Many authors specifically referenced social relations, social constructivism, or sociocultural
theory as the theoretical perspective they used to frame their research (Calabrese Barton
and Tan 2010; Bayne 2013; Darby 2005; Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Nicaise, Gibney,
and Crane 2000; Rahmawati and Koul 2016; Rop 1999; Seiler 2011). If it was not mentioned
or specifically defined, I determined the framework myself based on other research and the
definition of social constructivism (Appleton and Lawrenz 2011; Arvola and Lundegard 2012;
Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011; Cakmakci et al. 2012; Gabric et al. 2005; Gomez-
Arizaga et al. 2016; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015; Harwell
2000; Jenkins and Pell 2006; Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Lawrenz 1976; Levin and Wagner 2006;
Logan and Skamp 2008; Osborne and Collins 2001; Osisioma and Onyia 2009; Owen et al.
2008; Pedretti, Mayer-Smith, and Woodrow 1998; Sahin and Top 2015; Toplis 2012). Under
this heading, four subcategories were identified. These subcategories include forming iden-
tities, incorporating prior knowledge and experience, communicating interest in topics and
classroom activities, and improving the student–teacher relationship.

Forming identities
The concept of forming identities also finds its place under the theme of social constr-
uctivism. One way identities are constructed is through interactions with others

Figure 2.  Theme of social constructivism and subcategories. This figure shows the organization of
subcategories under the major theme of social constructivism.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 119

(Bayne 2013). Therefore, forming identities is related to the theoretical perspective of

social constructivism.
Allowing students a voice in the science classroom allows them to construct or add to
their identity as a student or scientist (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). Students use
their voices in dialogue with each other or with teachers in order to build identities about
things they care about (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). For example, Furman and
Calabrese Barton (2006) found that while filming a science documentary, 7th-grade boys
participating in a yearlong community science program used their voices to portray them-
selves as reptile or animal experts. In another example, Bayne (2013) studied how a 10th-grade
student identified as a co-teacher in science. Initially, this student had claimed science was
his worst subject but demonstrated through the use of cogenerative dialogues that he was
capable of using his voice in order to lead the class through science lessons (Bayne 2013).

Incorporating prior knowledge and experience

Studies support the idea that students do not see the relevance of science to their lives
(Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Osisioma and Onyia 2009). Sociocultural theory advocates linking
teaching with students’ out-of-school experiences (Seiler 2011). Some researchers suggest
that connecting science to students’ lives and interests is crucial to finding meaning in science
(Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012; Mallya et al. 2012; Seiler
2011). Furthermore, research indicates students want to incorporate real-world issues into
their science learning and want teachers to use out-of-school connections to enrich their
everyday learning (Appleton and Lawrenz 2011; Logan and Skamp 2013). Building on stu-
dents’ prior knowledge is a concrete and practical way to enrich the content of the existing
science curriculum and provide students with a meaningful learning experience (Hagay and
Baram-Tsabari 2015).
Students have acknowledged the usefulness of providing their own questions to the
teacher to be answered in conjunction with required content (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari
2015; Seiler 2011). Seiler’s (2011) study revealed that high school students took their prior
knowledge and used this to formulate questions to contribute to the science curriculum. By
allowing students to develop questions, Hagay and Baram-Tsabari (2015) demonstrated that
students displayed independence by linking content to their personal goals and by filling
gaps in understanding by relating this to their prior knowledge. Therefore, utilizing students’
questions is a way to bridge the gap between their personal lives and their school lives
(Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015).
Furman and Calabrese Barton (2006) referred to students’ prior experiences and under-
standings as ‘funds of knowledge’. Funds of knowledge can be defined as experiences and
knowledge from students’ lived worlds (Seiler 2011). Students can better connect with sci-
ence if they are allowed to use their voices to explain their funds of knowledge (Furman and
Calabrese Barton 2006). For example, Furman and Calabrese Barton (2006) found that stu-
dents filming a science documentary incorporated what they knew about animals to make
the video. In another example, Mallya et al. (2012) demonstrated that through a nutrition
curriculum incorporating students’ lived experiences, the students thought critically about
conditions in their neighborhoods. These students used their prior experiences to participate
in learning about food desserts (Mallya et al. 2012).
Arvola and Lundegard (2012) referred to students’ prior knowledge and feelings about
certain topics as ‘value relations’, which they defined as relations between a person and the
120 K. LAUX

world around them. They argued learning is a response to activity instead of an acquisition
of knowledge and examined argumentation in a high school in Sweden to investigate ways
to incorporate value relations into the science classroom (Arvola and Lundegard 2012). Arvola
and Lundegard (2012) determined students can experience an increase in the relevance of
science content to their lives outside of school using their voices through argumentation.
Rop (1999) studied how students in two Midwestern high schools made sense of their
life in chemistry in relation to the social and cultural influences around them. He established
teachers who are able to make better connections with students’ life outside of school help
students be more successful in learning chemistry (Rop 1999). For example, students strug-
gled with the idea that unseen concepts such as electrons existed and wished to understand
the mystery behind science ideas (Rop 1999). Rop (1999) argued that when teachers connect
these concepts to the students’ real lives, the students become emotionally engaged with
the subject matter.
Using a survey administered to middle school students in Southern California, Osisioma
and Onyia (2009) determined while students felt negatively about science as a school subject
in general, they responded favorably toward specific statements about science when it was
related to their lives. For example, students felt science was important to their lives in the
future and felt most people should study science because it helps them understand the
world (Osisioma and Onyia 2009). According to Osisioma and Onyia (2009), this indicates
students have the potential to develop positive views toward science if science is connected
to their lives outside of school. Osborne and Collins (2001) also found high school students
in England thought science was important to their lives and could help them understand
the world around them. However, these same students communicated they considered
certain topics boring, such as chemistry and physics, as they did not see how they related
to their lives (Osborne and Collins 2001). However, in biology, students identified topics that
could be related to their lives such as the human body and curing disease (Osborne and
Collins 2001).
Jenkins and Pell (2006) conducted a study that used data from part of the Relevance of
Science Education (ROSE) questionnaire administered to British students that focused on
environmental issues. They identified significant differences in responses between students
(Jenkins and Pell 2006). For example, some students feel disconnected to environmental
issues but others were unwilling to make lifestyle changes to make a difference in these
issues (Jenkins and Pell 2006). Many students felt confident there are solutions to environ-
mental crises (Jenkins and Pell 2006). Furthermore, while the students believed people
should care about environmental issues, they disagreed as to who is responsible for doing
so (Jenkins and Pell 2006). In another example, Jenkins and Nelson (2005) examined the
results of a different section of the ROSE questionnaire and found students failed to see the
link between themselves and science. According to the authors, the findings suggest stu-
dents viewed the curriculum as having little meaning to their lives outside of school (Jenkins
and Nelson 2005).

Communicating interest in topics and classroom activities

Allowing students a voice in the science classroom lets them express their interest in topics
and classroom activities. A great deal of research has been conducted to determine why
some students find science ‘boring’ or not useful to their lives. Additionally, students are able
identify what types of classroom activities are most conducive to the learning of science.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 121

Students tend to be more engaged in science if they see activities as practical or in which
they take an active part (Harwell 2000; Logan and Skamp 2008, 2013; Toplis 2012). Practical
work can be defined as hands-on learning that requires students to make observations and
inferences and to use equipment to do science (Toplis 2012). For example, Logan and Skamp
(2008) studied students transitioning from primary to secondary school and discovered the
students identified practical activities as more engaging than taking notes. In a similar study
by the same authors, students mentioned experiments as one of the activities they enjoyed
doing (Logan and Skamp 2013). Harwell (2000) researched girls’ perceptions on school sci-
ence and discovered that girls preferred experimentation and hands-on activities over pas-
sive activities such as writing. According to research conducted with year-nine students in
Western Australia, students enjoyed practical activities such as field work and felt this allowed
them to have a voice in the classroom (Rahmawati and Koul 2016). Both teachers and stu-
dents recognized the increased enthusiasm and engagement during the field work and
students referred to it as ‘fun’ during interviews (Rahmawati and Koul 2016). Osborne and
Collins (2001) did an extensive study involving 20 focus groups and 144 high school students
in England and determined students found practical work fun, gave them a greater sense
of ownership, and led to information being better retained (Osborne and Collins 2001).
Finally, in a study on high school students in England, Toplis (2012) attempted to determine
the reasons why students view practical work as important for the learning of school science.
He found, as other researchers did, that many students viewed practical work as fun, moti-
vating, and/or interesting (Toplis 2012). Furthermore, this research showed practical work
as a better alternative to written work and students felt they learned and remembered more
because they were doing the work themselves rather than copying notes someone else had
created (Toplis 2012).
Authentic learning is a type of practical work that involves connecting science topics to
real-world situations (Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000). Research on authentic learning
showed how high school aerospace students constructed meaning through their interests
while learning about real-world activities in school (Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000). While
studying an authentic learning environment, which involved a week-long mock space shuttle
mission, Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane (2000) realized many of the students in the study felt
the teachers were really the ones controlling the classroom environment and were unhappy
about this hands-on learning experience. However, students also noted they were much
more interested in smaller projects that allowed them more freedom in their learning
(Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).
Students identified group work as something they felt helped them learn science. Owen
et al. (2008) determined secondary science students in England enjoyed social activities
such as group work and construct activities such as experiments and making things and
viewed these activities as helpful to learning science (Owen et al. 2008). Toplis (2012) also
determined students enjoy the social aspects of group work. When given the opportunity
to participate in field work outside of the classroom, students commented on the sense of
group cohesiveness and the ability to work together during the field work and also pointed
out this group work helped them learn more about science topics (Rahmawati and Koul
2016). Sahin and Top (2015) investigated the components of what makes a successful STEM
teaching approach to keep high school students in Texas engaged and responsible for their
own learning. They found when the students participated in this program they enjoyed
activities that allowed them to become active learners such as hands-on group work because
122 K. LAUX

they were more focused when engaged in this style of learning (Sahin and Top 2015). Finally,
during their focus group study, Osborne and Collins (2001) learned students wanted more
time to discuss issues with their peers.
According to research, students want opportunities to be challenged in science classes.
Osborne and Collins (2001) determined through the use of focus groups that high school
students did not see science as something they could figure out the answer to – they felt
there was only one answer to scientific problems and they wanted opportunities to be
creative in discovering science. Additionally, students felt too much repetition was boring
and they often did not get the chance to learn new things because of it (Osborne and Collins
2001).
Some research has focused on students’ questions as a way for them to use their voice
to communicate interest. Cakmakci et al. (2012) conducted a study using Turkish primary
(up to 8th grade) school students’ self-generated questions to determine their interest in
scientific content. They observed the majority of the questions asked by the students fit into
the field of biology and the least amount of questions were asked in the field of earth science
(Cakmakci et al. 2012). Students also asked questions about astrophysics, the nature of sci-
ence, technology, physics, and chemistry (Cakmakci et al. 2012). The results showed differ-
ences in gender: girls asked more questions related to biology and earth science and boys
asked more questions related to technology (Cakmakci et al. 2012).
Some studies have concentrated on students’ preferences for the use of technology in
the science classroom. Gabric et al. (2005) researched how students responded to the use
of technology in the biology classroom as a way to engage and empower them in learning
technological skills, using real data, and becoming involved in real-life science. Students
reported feeling like real scientists and learning a great deal from this process and also
expressed a greater interest in science when allowed to use technology (Gabric et al. 2005).
Furthermore, students mentioned they preferred investigations using technology over read-
ing the same information out of a book or hearing a teacher lecture about it (Gabric et al.
2005). Pedretti, Mayer-Smith, and Woodrow (1998) also studied technology use and con-
ducted a study on high schoolers’ perceptions of the use of technology and talk in the science
classroom. While this 20-year-old study is a bit outdated in terms of the technology used in
today’s schools, Pedretti, Mayer-Smith, and Woodrow (1998) determined through semi-struc-
tured interviews that students had mixed feelings about computers in the classrooms. One
way this article does connect to other research is that the students who liked the computers
referred to them as fun or entertaining and some commented the use of technology allowed
them to collaborate with other students in the class (Pedretti, Mayer-Smith, and Woodrow
1998).
The results from most studies on interest agree written activities are the least exciting to
students (Logan and Skamp 2008, 2013; Owen et al. 2008; Toplis 2012). Owen et al. (2008)
found anything involving writing was rated the lowest on a questionnaire by secondary
science students and was not seen as practical in learning science. Osborne and Collins
(2001) discovered high school students in England viewed copying as not useful to their
learning. However, Levin and Wagner (2006) researched Israeli students’ views on writing to
learn in the science classroom through the use of metaphors in informal and reflective writing
tasks and received positive results. As opposed to other studies on student perceptions of
writing, it seemed the students understood the value of the writing tasks (Levin and Wagner
2006).
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 123

Improving student–teacher relationship

Expressing their voice on teacher effectiveness allows students to communicate their feelings
toward teacher attributes (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011). Teachers play a key
role in the science classroom as the facilitator of knowledge. Therefore, from the social con-
structivist viewpoint, the teacher–student relationship is important.
Research shows students who like their teachers will do better in science and will feel
disappointment if their expectations are not met (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011).
Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak (2011) explored the effectiveness of three middle school
science teachers. Students claimed the teachers they liked the most were the most effective
at teaching (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011). If students see a teacher is effective,
students will be more likely to express their desire to learn and become more engaged in
the classroom (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011).
Darby (2005) explored students’ perceptions at an independent school in Victoria,
Australia. She used two types of pedagogy, instructional and relational, to frame her inves-
tigation (Darby 2005). Instructional pedagogy was defined as how the teacher drew the
students in to the learning process and helped them understand science (Darby 2005).
Relational pedagogy was defined as how the teacher developed a relationship with the
students (Darby 2005). These types of pedagogies are connected by the teacher promoting
an atmosphere of social interaction and co-constructing knowledge along with the students
(Darby 2005). Darby (2005) found students felt they learned better when their teacher was
passionate about the subject matter, provided a supportive learning environment, and made
them feel comfortable. In another study, students emphasized the importance of a relaxed
environment provided by the teacher (Osborne and Collins 2001). Darby (2005) also reported
students thought the use of class discussions, how friendly a teacher is, and how well they
listened to students were good teacher attributes.
Students think teachers should be responsible for providing a stimulating environment
and maintaining interest in science topics (Osborne and Collins 2001). Students have empha-
sized the teacher’s role in the classroom is related to their engagement in science learning
(Darby 2005). Teachers should make science fun whether they use engaging methods or
incorporate exciting topics (Osborne and Collins 2001). In a study conducted with students
transitioning from middle to high school, Logan and Skamp (2013) examined students’
science interest in relation to their teachers’ pedagogical practices. They discovered a clear
link between learning experiences and science interest and the teachers’ science pedagogy
and their personality was what contributed the most to the students’ science interest (Logan
and Skamp 2013). Specifically mentioned by the students was a teacher having a sense of
humor or one that was easygoing and provided students with challenges was more likely
to keep their interest in science (Logan and Skamp 2013). Conversely, the students men-
tioned that teachers who yell a lot or are sarcastic and make them copy a lot of notes are
ineffective (Logan and Skamp 2013).
Students say teachers are more effective if they take the time to clarify and explain topics
(Darby 2005; Osborne and Collins 2001). This was corroborated by research on a STEM pro-
gram done by Sahin and Top (2015) who found students enjoyed when the teachers explain
how everything is connected and take the time to explain scientific concepts. Logan and
Skamp (2013) also found students viewed teachers who take the time to explain things as
good teachers.
124 K. LAUX

Discussion
The purpose of this review was to explore the literature on student voice in the science class-
room. Including the student voice is a way of thinking about education based on the idea
that students have unique perspectives on teaching and learning, their insights warrant the
attention and response of adults, and they should have opportunities to actively shape their
education (Cook Sather 2006). Based on the science education literature, there is a wide variety
of ways educators can include student voice in the science classroom. Educators can listen
to student voices to allow them to express prior knowledge or interest and participate in the
science curriculum (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012;
Jenkins and Pell 2006; Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Osisioma and Onyia 2009; Rop 1999; Seiler
2011). Students could be allowed to use their voices to form identities and/or develop their
science agency (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Bayne 2013; Basu 2008; Basu et al. 2009;
Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Mallya et al. 2012). Finally, student voices can be listened
to in order to improve teacher–student relationships (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak
2011; Darby 2005; Osborne and Collins 2001). Researchers identified numerous benefits to
incorporating student voice into the science classroom which, are discussed in the following
sections. Based on the research I reviewed for this literature review, I conclude that students
should be allowed a voice in the science classroom and if educators continue to refuse to
acknowledge the voices of those we serve, we will be limiting their educational experience.

Implications
The findings of this literature review have significant implications for science teaching and
learning. Allowing students a voice in the science classroom has the potential to impact
student empowerment, meaningful science learning, engagement and achievement, and
motivation in learning science.

Empowerment
Student voice is related to critical theory because it can address power struggles between
teachers and students and alter these imbalances (Cook Sather 2006). Including student
voices in the classroom can redistribute this power imbalance between teacher and students
(Cook Sather 2002).
Students demonstrate empowerment by utilizing their voices to dictate classroom deci-
sions (Bayne 2013; Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Gabric et al. 2005; Hagay and Baram-
Tsabari 2015). Students can become empowered and feel valued in the science classroom
by participating in conversations about science topics (Bayne 2013). Students also build
empowering identities and improve their science agency through the learning of science
content and the choices they are allowed to make in science (Mallya et al. 2012; Furman and
Calabrese Barton 2006). Teachers can assist these feelings of empowerment by exploring
and understanding their students’ views and using them to inform their instructional deci-
sions (Levin and Wagner 2006). Student voice calls for a cultural shift to open up spaces and
minds not only to the sound but to the presence and power of students (Cook Sather 2006).

Meaningful science learning

According to the social constructivist approach, knowledge is considered meaningful
because it is gained through interactions with the world (Crotty 2013; Paul 2005). Students
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 125

actively construct their own understandings and assess their own learning (Cook Sather
2002). In addition, students do not have a clear understanding of what learning leads to and
how later learning builds on earlier learning (Rudduck and Flutter 2004). Therefore, for mean-
ing to be made in science education, students must have the opportunity to interact with
the world and use their voice to make education meaningful to them.
Cultivating student voice in science classrooms may help students find a deeper, more
meaningful connection with school (Basu 2008; Bayne 2013; Furman and Calabrese Barton
2006; Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015; Logan and Skamp 2008;
Mallya et al. 2012; Pedretti, Mayer-Smith, and Woodrow 1998). It may be easy for a teacher
to underestimate a student’s potential (Basu et al. 2009) because the absence of student
voice can lead a student to view their education as meaningless and become less motivated
as a result (Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Jenkins and Nelson 2005). Additionally, the
lack of control students experience as part of the educational system can be interpreted as
having less meaning and therefore fail to engage them (Osborne and Collins 2001). Expressing
their voice can allow students to construct meaning from new ideas (Arvola and Lundegard
2012; Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). In addition, using
students’ voices as a mechanism to get feedback can lead to educators developing novel
instructional strategies that contribute to meaningful science learning (Gomez-Arizaga
et al. 2016). However, the development of this meaning along with science expertise and
engagement with science takes time and ongoing human interactions (Basu et al. 2009).

Engagement and achievement

Educators who wish to promote youth engagement in school may want to consider giving
students a more active role in classrooms and schools (Cook Sather 2007) because students
voicing their ideas and interests can have a positive impact on student engagement and
achievement (Basu 2008; Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006; Seiler 2011) and may also allow
teachers to determine a student’s level of engagement in a topic or activity (Appleton and
Lawrenz 2011). Engagement can be indicated by observing the effort put forth in academic
tasks (Appleton and Lawrenz 2011) and can predict achievement outcomes in science
(Appleton and Lawrenz 2011; Basu 2008).
Teachers who do not incorporate student voice in the classroom see drops in achievement
levels and engagement (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak 2011). Cook Sather (2007)
observed that for students to feel engaged in school, they need to feel teachers know them
and want them to learn. This research also uncovered that student engagement in school
is highly dependent on teacher engagement with students (Cook Sather 2007). Without a
constructive mode of self-expression such as having a voice in the classroom, engagement
in science may diminish (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010).
Constructivist learning theories assume students come into the science classroom with
prior ideas and knowledge about the world (Darby 2005). Darby (2005) identified student
engagement as allowing students to construct their own knowledge based on previous
understandings. Cultivating student voice in the science classroom is one way for students
to express this prior knowledge and to promote engagement with science topics (Basu 2008;
Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Furman and Calabrese Barton 2006). As Rudduck and Flutter (2004)
state, ‘we cannot keep the world inside of school away from the world outside of school’ (7).
Achievement, or success, is also mentioned in the science education literature as a pos-
sible outcome of bringing student voice into the classroom (Basu 2008). Research by Darby
126 K. LAUX

(2005) and Appleton and Lawrenz (2011) provided evidence for the link between engage-
ment and student success saying students needed to actively construct their own knowledge
in order to achieve success. Listening to student voice is a way to allow students to express
their ideas of success (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012; Rop 1999). Students engaged in stu-
dent-centered activities that use higher level thinking skills aligned with student voice tend
to exhibit higher self-efficacy and achievement in science (Bolshakova, Johnson, and Czerniak
2011).

Motivation
Allowing students to voice their interests has the potential to increase student motivation
(Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015; Seiler 2011). When students are able to express what works
for them in the science classroom, they become more motivated (Bolshakova, Johnson, and
Czerniak 2011; Cakmakci et al. 2012; Osborne and Collins 2001; Toplis 2012). However, dis-
cussing motivation as a result of listening to student voice may be problematic as it may
describe situational interest rather than motivation (Toplis 2012).

Future studies
While many studies emphasized the importance of student voice, few described ways to
realistically implement student voice in the classroom. One exception would be Seiler (2011);
she lays out a step-by-step method, which educators could use as a guide to incorporate
student voices into the curriculum. Another study that described a method for incorporating
student voice would be the research done by Hagay and Baram-Tsabari (2015). They explained
how a teacher could incorporate students’ questions into the classroom but because the
teacher was responsible for screening the questions and sometimes did not deem the ques-
tion important, some students were left out of the process (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2015).
Other studies utilized surveys to gather information from students but did not provide a
method for incorporating these voices into the classroom on a regular basis (Jenkins and
Pell 2006; Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Lawrenz 1976; Osisioma and Onyia 2009). Therefore,
more research needs to be conducted in this area if we are to genuinely expect students’
voices to be considered in the science classroom.
Many authors noted that since their research involved only a select few participants, it
would be difficult to generalize the findings (Arvola and Lundegard 2012; Basu 2008; Basu
et al. 2009; Gomez-Arizaga et al. 2016; Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2012; Logan and Skamp
2008; Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000). In addition, other studies were conducted outside
of the science classroom (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Furman and Calabrese Barton
2006) or in a specialized environment (Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000) so there was no
concern about meeting state or national science standards. Furthermore, while most
research, including the research presented in this paper, involves teachers or researchers,
administrators may also benefit from listening to student voices and could support such
efforts by teaming up with faculty members (Cook Sather 2007). Clearly, more research needs
to be conducted that focuses on larger groups of students or even entire schools. This would
allow the findings to be generalized to all groups of students and would increase the under-
standing of how to incorporate student voice into the science classroom.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 127

Conclusion
Although it is clear from the research literature in science education, incorporating student
voice in a classroom or school can have numerous benefits. However, in order for this method
to be effective, we must not simply ask students for their ideas; we must listen, respond to,
and act on what students have to say (Cook Sather 2007, 2002). This may require changes
to the typical structure of schools to include student voices as part of the school community
(Cook Sather 2002; Rudduck and Flutter 2004). As long as we exclude student perspectives,
we will never fully understand life in schools (Cook Sather 2002).
In conclusion, I maintain that all students should have a voice in science classrooms.
Rudduck and Flutter assert, ‘the traditional exclusion of young people from the processes
of dialog and decision-making, this bracketing out of their voices, is founded upon an out-
dated view of childhood which fails to acknowledge young people’s capacity to take initia-
tives and to reflect on issues affecting their lives’ (1). When students have a say in the
educational process, they have the opportunity to gain perspective into what happens in
classrooms and feel more empowered in their education (Cook Sather 2007). All individual
students bring something different and important to the classroom community. Students
should have the opportunity to construct their own meaning with science content and to
feel empowered by their education. Educators must consider the idea that science will not
be relevant or meaningful to students if we continue to silence their voices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Appleton, J. J., and F. Lawrenz. 2011. “Student and Teacher Perspectives Across Mathematics and Science
Classrooms: The Importance of Engaging Contexts.” School Science and Mathematics 111 (4): 143–155.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00072.x.
Arvola, A. O., and I. Lundegard. 2012. “‘It’s Her Body’. When Students’ Argumentation Shows Displacement
of Content in a Science Classroom.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42: 1121–1145. doi:10.1007/
s11165-011-9237-2.
Basu, S. 2008. “How Students Design and Enact Physics Lessons: Five Immigrant Caribbean Youth and
the Cultivation of Student Voice.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (8): 881–899. doi:10.1002/
tea.20257.
Basu, S. J., A. Calabrese Barton, N. Clairmont, and D. Locke. 2009. “Developing a Framework for Critical
Science Agency Through Case Study in a Conceptual Physics Context.” Cultural Studies of Science
Education 4: 345–371. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8.
Bayne, G. U. 2013. “Coteaching, Peer Tutoring and Curriculum Writing: Lasting Effects of Involving
Students in Talking About Science.” Pedagogies: An International Journal 8 (4): 369–383. doi:10.108
0/1554480x.2013.829275.
Bolshakova, V. L. J., C. C. Johnson, and C. M. Czerniak. 2011. “‘It Depends on What Teacher You Got’:
Urban Science Self-efficacy From Teacher and Student Voices.” Cultural Studies of Science Education
6: 961–997. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9346-2.
Cakmakci, G., H. Sevindik, M. Pektas, A. Uysal, F. Kole, and G. Kavak. 2012. “Investigating Turkish Primary
School Students’ Interest in Science by Using Their Self-Generated Questions.” Research in Science
Education 42: 469–489. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9206-1.
Calabrese Barton, A., and E. Tan. 2010. “We Be Burnin’! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning.” Journal
of the Learning Sciences 19 (2): 187–229. doi:10.1080/10508400903530044.
128 K. LAUX

Cook Sather, A. 2002. “Authorizing Students’ Perspectives: Toward Trust, Dialogue, and Change in
Education.” Educational Researcher 31 (4): 3–14.
Cook Sather, A. 2006. “Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Education Research and Reform.”
Curriculum Inquiry 36 (4): 359–390.
Cook Sather, A. 2007. “What Would Happen If We Treated Students as Those With Opinions That Matter?
The Benefits to Principals and Teachers of Supporting Youth Engagement.” NASSP Bulletin 91 (4):
343–362. doi:10.1177/0192636507309872.
Crotty, M. 2013. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process.
Prahran: Sage.
Darby, L. 2005. “Science Students’ Perceptions of Engaging Pedagogy.” Research in Science Education
35: 425–445. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-4488-4.
Furman, M., and A. Calabrese Barton. 2006. “Capturing Urban Student Voices in the Creation of a Science
Mini-documentary.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (7): 667–694. doi:10.1002/tea.20164.
Gabric, K. M., C. Z. Hovance, S. L. Comstock, and D. L. Harnisch. 2005. “Scientists in Their Own Classroom:
The Use of Type II Technology in the Science Classroom.” Computers in the School 22 (3-4): 77–91.
Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., A. Kadir Bahar, C. June Maker, R. Zimmerman, and R. Pease. 2016. “How Does
Science Learning Occur in the Classroom? Students’ Perceptions of Science Instruction During the
Implementation of REAPS Model.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education
12 (3): 431–455.
Hagay, G., and A. Baram-Tsabari. 2012. “Including Students’ Voices as Engagement With Curriculum:
Perspectives From a Secondary Biology Course.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and
Technology Education 12 (2): 160–177. doi:10.1080/14926156.2012.679997.
Hagay, G., and A. Baram-Tsabari. 2015. “A Strategy for Incorporating Students’ Interests into the High
School Science Classroom.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52 (7): 979–978. doi:10.1002/
tea.21228.
Harwell, S. 2000. “In Their Own Voices: Middle Level Girls’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Science.”
Journal of Science Teacher Education 11 (3): 221–242. doi:10.1023/A:1009456724950.
Jenkins, E. W., and N. W. Nelson. 2005. “Important But Not For Me: Students’ Attitudes Towards
Secondary School Science in England.” Research in Science and Technological Education 23 (1): 41–57.
doi:10.1080/02635140500068435.
Jenkins, E. W., and R. G. Pell. 2006. “‘Me and the Environmental Challenges’: A Survey of English
Secondary School Students’ Attitudes Towards the Environment.” International Journal of Science
Education 28 (7): 765–780. doi:10.1080/09500690500498336.
Lawrenz, F. 1976. “Student Perception of the Classroom Learning Environment in Biology, Chemistry, and
Physics Courses.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13 (4): 315–323. doi:10.1002/tea.3660130405.
Levin, T., and T. Wagner. 2006. “In their Own Words: Understanding Student Conceptions of Writing
Through their Spontaneous Metaphors in the Science Classroom.” Instructional Science 34: 227–278.
doi:10.1007/s11251-005-6929-x.
Logan, M., and K. Skamp. 2008. “Engaging Students in Science Across the Primary Secondary Interface:
Listening to Students’ Voice.” Research in Science Education 38 (4): 501–527. doi:10.1007/s11165-
007-9063-8.
Logan, M., and K. Skamp. 2013. “The Impact of Teachers and Their Science Teaching on Students’‘Science
Interest’: A Four-year Study.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (17): 2879–2904. doi:10.1
080/09500693.2012.667167.
Mallya, A., F. M. Mensah, I. R. Contento, P. A. Koch, and A. Calabrese Barton. 2012. “Extending Science
Beyond the Classroom Door: Learning From Students’ Experience With the Choice, Control, and
Change (C3) Curriculum.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (2): 244–269. doi:10.1002/
tea.21006.
Nicaise, M., T. Gibney, and M. Crane. 2000. “Toward an Understanding of Authentic Learning: Student
Perceptions of an Authentic Classroom.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 9 (1): 79–94.
doi:10.1023/A:1009477008671.
Osborne, J., and S. Collins. 2001. “Pupils’ Views of the Role and Value of the Science Curriculum: A
Focus-group Study.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (5): 441–467. doi:10.1080/09950
06900100006518.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 129

Osisioma, I., and C. R. Onyia. 2009. “Capturing Urban Middle School Students’ Voices on the Use of
Inquiry in their Classrooms.” International Education Studies 2 (2): 3–16. doi:10.5539/ies.v2n2p3.
Owen, S., D. Dickson, M. Stanisstreet, and E. Boyes. 2008. “Teaching Physics: Students’ Attitudes Towards
Different Learning Activities.” Research in Science and Technological Education 26 (2): 113–128.
doi:10.1080/02635140802036734.
Paul, James L. 2005. Introduction to the Philosophies of Research and Criticism in Education and the Social
Sciences. New Jersey: Pearson.
Pedretti, E., J. Mayer-Smith, and J. Woodrow. 1998. “Technology, Text, and Talk: Students’ Perspectives on
Teaching and Learning in a Technology-Enhanced Secondary Science Classroom.” Science Education
82: 569–589. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199809)82:5<569::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-7.
Rahmawati, Y., and R. Koul. 2016. “Fieldwork, Co-teaching and Co-generative Dialogue in Lower
Secondary School Environmental Science.” Issues in Educational Research 26 (1): 147–164.
Rop, C. 1999. “Student Perspectives on Success in high school chemistry.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 36 (2): 221–237. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<221::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-C.
Rudduck, J., and J. Flutter. 2004. How to Improve Your School: Giving Pupils a Voice. London: Continuum.
Sahin, A., and N. Top. 2015. “STEM Students on the Stage (SOS): Promoting Student Voice and Choice in
STEM Education Through an Interdisciplinary, Standards-focused, Project Based Learning Approach.”
Journal of STEM Education 16 (3): 32–34.
Seiler, G. 2011. “Reconstructing Science Curricula Through Student Voice and Choice.” Education and
Urban Society 45 (3): 362–384. doi:10.1177/0013124511408596.
Toplis, R. 2012. “Students’ Views About Secondary School Science Lessons: The Role of Practical Work.”
Research in Science Education 42: 531–549. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9209-6.