Empowering Student Voices: The Choice, Voice, and Poise Framework for Dynamic Learner-Tutor Relationships
Keywords:
Student Voice, Student Engagement, Students as Partners (SaP), Co-creation, Empowerment Pedagogy, Higher Education, Choice-Voice-Poise FrameworkAbstract
This paper introduces the Choice, Voice, and Poise (CVP) framework, a tripartite model designed to bridge the gap between student engagement theory and the Students as Partners (SaP) movement in higher education. Addressing critiques of tokenism and power imbalances in existing partnership models, CVP integrates behavioral (Choice), emotional (Voice), and cognitive (Poise) dimensions of engagement into a scaffolded developmental progression. Through the reflective case study of "April," a university tutor who implemented CVP in her classroom, we demonstrate how the framework facilitates authentic learner-tutor partnerships—from co-designed rubrics to student-led peer feedback. Findings reveal that structured autonomy (Choice) builds foundational agency, dialogic validation (Voice) fosters emotional investment, and metacognitive leadership (Poise) enables students to steward their own learning. While institutional barriers and cultural hesitancy pose challenges, CVP’s iterative approach offers a pragmatic pathway to decentralizing instructor authority and nurturing student ownership. The study contributes actionable strategies for educators and argues for systemic support to scale partnership pedagogies. By redefining engagement as a dynamic, equity-centered process, CVP advances a vision of higher education where students are not merely participants but co-architects of their academic experience.
Downloads
References
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4
Bovill, C. (2017). A framework to explore roles within student-staff partnerships in higher education: Which students are partners, when, and in what ways? International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 10–14.
Bovill, C. (2019a). A co-creation of learning and teaching typology: What kind of co-creation are you planning or doing? International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.3953
Bovill, C. (2019b). Student–staff partnerships in learning and teaching: An overview of current practice and discourse. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1660628
Bovill, C., & Woolmer, C. (2019). How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education, 78, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0349-8
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037.
Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.805694
Cook-Sather, A. (2018). Tracing the evolution of student voice in educational research. In Radical collegiality through student voice: Educational experience, policy and practice (pp. 17–38). Springer.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Wiley.
Dunne, E., & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education. ESCalate. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/14767
Felten, P., Bagg, J., Bumbry, M., Hill, J., Hornsby, K., Pratt, M., & Weller, S. (2013). A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.63
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). “More than customers”: Conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574–2587. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623769
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy.
Klemencic, M. (2011). Student representation in European higher education governance: Principles and practice, roles and benefits. In E. Egron-Polak, J. Kohler, S. Bergan, & L. Purser (Eds.), Handbook on leadership and governance in higher education (pp. 1–26). Raabe.
Macfarlane, B. (2020). Myths about students in higher education: separating fact from folklore. Oxford Review of Education, 46(5), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1724086
Matthews, K. E. (2017). Five propositions for genuine students as partners practice. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3315
Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Russell, S., & Enright, E. (2018). It is a complicated thing: Leaders’ conceptions of students as partners in the neoliberal university. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2196–2207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1482268
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Bovill, C. (2019). Equity and diversity in institutional approaches to student–staff partnership schemes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2541–2557. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1620721
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., ... & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Neary, M., & Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: Reinventing the student experience in higher education. In L. Bell, H. Stevenson, & M. Neary (Eds.), The future of higher education: Policy, pedagogy and the student experience (pp. 192-210). Continuum.
Partington, A. (2020). Personalised learning for the student-consumer. Frontiers in Education, 5, 529628. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.529628
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Nature.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, M. (2013). Guidance on the development and implementation of a student partnership agreement in universities. National Union of Students.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
