نظریه و عمل در برنامه درسی

نظریه و عمل در برنامه درسی

صدای دانش‌آموز و عاملیت در برنامه درسی: مرور انتقادی مدل‌های مشارکت و مذاکره در نظام‌های آموزشی منتخب با دلالت‌هایی برای ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
دکتری تخصصی برنامه ریزی درسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
10.22034/cstp.2026.588809.1173
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر با هدف مرور انتقادی تجارب جهانی برنامه درسی مدرسه‌ای مبتنی بر صدای دانش‌آموز و عاملیت و تحلیل مدل‌های مشارکت و مذاکره در نظام‌های آموزشی منتخب انجام شده است. با وجود تأکید گسترده ادبیات نظری بر اهمیت صدای دانش‌آموز و عاملیت، شواهد نشان می‌دهد که مشارکت دانش‌آموزان در بسیاری از بافت‌های آموزشی به فرصت‌هایی محدود و نمادین تقلیل می‌یابد. این شکاف، مسئله محوری پژوهش را شکل می‌دهد. روش پژوهش، مرور انتقادی با رویکرد تحلیلی-تفسیری است که با جستجوی هدفمند در پایگاه‌های معتبر و تحلیل ۷۷ منبع علمی انجام شده است. یافته‌ها در چهار حوزه اصلی سازماندهی شدند: پیوند مفهومی صدای دانش‌آموز و عاملیت با تأکید بر نقش میانجی درگیری عاملیتی؛ ساختارهای برنامه درسی در نظام‌های آموزشی منتخب (ایرلند، نیوزیلند، استونی، کره جنوبی و فنلاند)؛ مدل‌های مشارکت و مذاکره شامل مدل لاندی، رویکرد بومر و برنامه درسی تلفیقی مذاکره‌شده؛ و چالش‌های تحقق عاملیت در سطوح ساختاری، فرهنگی و نهادی. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که تحقق عاملیت اصیل مستلزم تغییرات هم‌زمان در انعطاف‌پذیری برنامه درسی، بازنگری در نظام‌های ارزشیابی، اصلاح نگرش‌ها نسبت به ظرفیت دانش‌آموزان و نقش معلمان، و ایجاد فرهنگ مدرسه‌ای مشارکت‌محور است. همچنین، در نظام‌های آموزشی متمرکز مانند ایران، تحقق چنین تحولاتی با چالش‌های بیشتری همراه است. یافته‌ها می‌تواند مبنایی برای بازاندیشی در سیاست‌ها و رویه‌های برنامه درسی در ایران فراهم آورد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Student Voice and Agency in Curriculum: A Critical Review of Participation and Negotiation Models in Selected Educational Systems with Implications for Iran

نویسنده English

Ali Mahdavikhah
Ph.D. Student in Curriculum Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده English

The present study aims to critically review global experiences of school curriculum based on student voice and agency and analyze participation and negotiation models in selected educational systems. Despite extensive theoretical emphasis on the importance of student voice and agency, evidence indicates that student participation in many educational contexts is reduced to limited and symbolic opportunities. This gap constitutes the central problem of the research. The research method is a critical review with an analytical-interpretive approach, conducted through targeted searching in reputable databases and analysis of 77 scientific sources. The findings were organized into four main areas: the conceptual link between student voice and agency with emphasis on the mediating role of agentic engagement; curriculum structures in selected educational systems (Ireland, New Zealand, Estonia, South Korea, and Finland); participation and negotiation models including the Lundy model, Boomer's approach, and the Negotiated Integrated Curriculum; and the challenges of realizing agency at structural, cultural, and institutional levels. The results indicate that realizing authentic agency requires simultaneous changes in curriculum flexibility, revising assessment systems, modifying attitudes toward student capacity and teacher roles, and creating participatory school cultures. Furthermore, in centralized educational systems like Iran, realizing such transformations is accompanied by greater challenges. The findings can provide a basis for rethinking curriculum policies and practices in Iran.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Student Voice
Student Agency
Negotiated Curriculum
Student Participation
Agentic Engagement
خطاط، محدثه؛ دهقانی، مرضیه؛ حکیم‌زاده، رضوان؛ صالحی، کیوان؛ و عالی، مرضیه. (۱۴۰۴). واکاوی موضع‌گیری دیدگاه‌های فلسفی پیرامون مفهوم صدای دانش‌آموز در برنامه درسی و استخراج دلالت‌های تربیتی آن. پژوهش‌نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت، ۱۵(۱)، ۱۳۱–۱۶۰. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.2025.91048.1390
شرفی، سکینه؛ و مؤمنی مهمویی، حسین. (۱۴۰۲). برنامه درسی مذاکره‌ای، الزامات، فرصت‌ها و چالش‌ها. پژوهش‌های کیفی در برنامه درسی، ۴(۱۱)، ۱۳۲–۱۶۵. https://doi.org/10.22054/qric.2023.57764.311
قاسمی، یارمحمد؛ هواس‌بیگی، فاطمه؛ و وحدتی، رضا. (۱۴۰۴). روایت دانش‌آموزان از کشاکش ساختار و عاملیت در آموزش: مطالعه‌ای کیفی در دوره متوسطه اول شهر ایلام. فصلنامه علوم اجتماعی، ۳۲(۱۰۹)، ۴۵–۷۷. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.2026.89996.2939
محمدی، طاهره؛ زاهدبابلان، عادل؛ خالق‌خواه، علی؛ و معینی‌کیا، مهدی. (۱۴۰۰). طراحی و اعتباریابی مدل تحقق صدای دانش‌آموز بر اساس ادراک مدیران (با رویکرد آمیخته). پژوهش در نظام‌های آموزشی، ۱۵(۵۳)، ۵–۲۲. https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2021.296130.2556
ملکی، شیوا؛ زاهد بابلان، عادل؛ خالق‌خواه، علی؛ و تقوی، حسین. (۱۴۰۲). پیشایندهای تحقق صدای دانش‌آموز: یک مطالعه فراترکیب. مطالعات آموزشی و آموزشگاهی، ۱۲(۴)، ۲۳۷–۲۶۷. https://doi.org/10.48310/pma.2023.3451
مهدوی‌خواه، علی؛ جاویدی کلاته جعفرآبادی، طاهره؛ امین خندقی، مقصود؛ و کرمی، مرتضی. (۱۴۰۲). حدود و ثغور مشارکت دانش‌آموزان در برنامه درسی: تحلیل دیدگاه صاحب‌نظران. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی تعلیم و تربیت، ۳۹(۱)، ۷–۲۶. http://qjoe.ir/article-1-1933-fa.html
ناصرزعیم، مهدی؛ محمدی چابکی، رضا؛ باقری نوع‌پرست، خسرو؛ فتح‌آبادی، جلیل؛ و شکری، امید. (۱۴۰۳). طراحی مدل مفهومی تعامل مطلوب معلم با دانش‌آموز بر مبنای عاملیت معلم. مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی در نظام‌های آموزشی، ۱۷(۲)، ۱۵۹–۱۸۶. https://doi.org/10.48308/mpes.2025.235828.1466
 Ahmadi, R. (2021). Student voice, culture, and teacher power in curriculum co-design within higher education: An action-based research study. International Journal for Academic Development, 28(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1923502
Ahmadi, R. (2022). Students’ perceptions of student voice in assessment within the context of Iran: The dynamics of culture, power relations, and student knowledge. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1882401
Bandura, A. (2017). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press.
Beane, J. A. (2024). ‘Because it’s your education, not mine’: A retrospective on student voice in curriculum decisions and school policy. Education 3-13, 52(6), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2332860
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Boomer, G., Onore, C., Lester, N., & Cook, J. (2005). Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century. Routledge.
Bragg, S. (2024). A logic of care in / of / for voice: Tuning-in, enacting and assembling in student voice practices and education. Education 3-13, 52(6), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2331955
Bron, J., & Veugelers, W. (2014). Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1-2), 125–139.
Bron, J., Bovill, C., & Veugelers, W. (2016). Curriculum negotiation: The relevance of Boomer's approach to the curriculum as a process, integrating student voice and developing democratic citizenship. Curriculum Perspectives, 36(1), 15–27.
Brough, C. (2008). Student-centred curriculum integration in action: “I was wondering if you could tell me how much one meat patty and one sausage costs?”. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (3), 15–20.
Brough, C. J. (2012). Implementing the democratic principles and practices of student-centred curriculum integration in primary schools. The Curriculum Journal, 23(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.703498
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Eds. & Trans.). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2019). Democratic contribution or information for reform? Prevailing and emerging discourses of student voice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(6), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.1
Cockburn, T. (2013). Rethinking children's citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x
Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Student voice across contexts: Fostering student agency in today’s schools. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1705091
Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O'Reilly, J. (2014). ‘Just be quiet and listen to exactly what he's saying': Conceptualising power relations in inquiry-oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029–2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.889867
Dowden, T., Brough, C., & Fogarty-Perry, B. (2024). Student-centred curriculum integration in primary schools: Nurturing democratic citizenship in Aotearoa New Zealand. Curriculum Perspectives, 44(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-024-00221-6
Esser, F., Baader, M., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (2016). Reconceptualising agency and childhood. Routledge.
Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195236
Fitzpatrick, J. (2016). Negotiating the curriculum: An integrated approach supporting meaningful learning through learner and professional agency [Doctoral dissertation, University of Limerick].
Fitzpatrick, J., O'Grady, E., & O'Reilly, J. (2018). Promoting student agentic engagement through curriculum: Exploring the Negotiated Integrated Curriculum initiative. Irish Educational Studies, 37(4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512882
Ghasemi, Y., Havas Beigi, F., & Vahdati, R. (2025). Students' narratives of the conflict between structure and agency in education: A qualitative study in junior high school in Ilam. Quarterly Journal of Social Sciences, 32(109), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.2026.89996.2939 [in Persian]
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hanson, K. (2016). Children’s participation and agency when they don’t ‘do the right thing.’ Childhood, 23(4), 471–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216676652
Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019). Agency in the making: Analyzing students’ transformative agency in a school-based makerspace. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547
Kellett, M. (2019). Voice, participation, and agency. In Childhood studies. Oxford University Press.
Kennan, D., Brady, B., & Forkan, C. (2019). Space, voice, audience and influence: The Lundy model of participation (2007) in child welfare practice. Practice, 31(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2018.1483494
Ketonen, L., & Nieminen, J. H. (2025). Professional autonomy vs. assessment criteria: Teacher agency in the midst of assessment reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 57(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.2460476
Khattat, M., Dehghani, M., Hakimzadeh, R., Salehi, K., & Aali, M. (2025). Analyzing the stance of philosophical views on the concept of student voice in the curriculum and extracting its educational implications. Foundations of Education, 15(1), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.2025.91048.1390 [in Persian]
Kim, S. (2026). Reframing student agency: From voice to design in South Korea’s competency-based curriculum reform. Educational Research and Evaluation, 32(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2026.2651082
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
Lee, C. (2026). Rethinking curriculum and teaching through student voice: Insights from the Korean educational context. Curriculum and Teaching, 41(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/410105
Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
Mahdavikhah, A., Javidi Kalateh Jafarabadi, T., Amin Khandaghi, M., & Karami, M. (2023). Limits and scope of student participation in the curriculum: Analysis of experts' perspectives. Quarterly Journal of Education, 39(1), 7–26. [in Persian]
Maleki, S., Zahed Babelan, A., Khaleghkhah, A., & Taghavi, H. (2023). Identifying the antecedents of the realization of student voice: A meta-synthesis study. Educational and Scholastic Studies, 12(4), 237–267. https://doi.org/10.48310/pma.2023.3451 [In Persian]
Manyukhina, Y., & Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: A critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1599973
Matusov, E., von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0
Mayes, E. (2018). Student voice in school reform? Desiring simultaneous critique and affirmation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(3), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1492517
Mayes, E., Black, R., & Finneran, R. (2021). The possibilities and problematics of student voice for teacher professional learning: Lessons from an evaluation study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1806988
Mayes, E., Finneran, R., & Black, R. (2019). The challenges of student voice in primary schools: Students ‘having a voice’ and ‘speaking for’ others. Australian Journal of Education, 63(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119859445
Misco, T. (2014). “We are only looking for the right answers”: The challenges of controversial issue instruction in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(3), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.940031
Mitra, D. L. (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth. State University of New York Press.
Mohammadi, T., Zahed Babelan, A., Khaleghkhah, A., & Moeinikia, M. (2021). Design and validation of the student voice realization model based on the administrators' perception (with a mixed method approach). Journal of Research in Educational Science, 15(53), 5–22. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.23831324.1400.15.53.1.5 [in Persian]
Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge.
Moreno-Romero, C., Enn, Ü., Savvani, S., & Pantazis, A. (2024). Educational commons facilitating student voice: An ethnographic approach. Education 3-13, 52(6), 891–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2331952
Naserzaeim, M., Mohammadi Chaboki, R., Bagheri Noparast, K., Fathabadi, J., & Shokri, O. (2024). Designing a conceptual model of optimal teacher-student interaction based on teacher agency. Journal of Management and Planning in Educational Systems, 17(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.48308/mpes.2025.235828.1466 [in Persian]
Nelson, E., & Charteris, J. (2020). Student voice research as a technology of reform in neoliberal times. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1713867
Nieminen, J. H., & Hannula, J. (2026). Student partnership in mathematics assessment: Fostering student agency. ZDM – Mathematics Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-026-01553-9
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.
O'Reilly, J., & O'Grady, E. (2024). ‘Our opinions really matter': Conceptualising and operationalising authentic student voice through negotiated integrated curriculum. Education 3-13, 52(6), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2331954
Pechtelidis, Y., & Kioupkiolis, A. (2020). Education as commons, children as commoners: The case study of the Little Tree community. Democracy and Education, 28(1), 1–11.
Polvere, L. (2014). Agency in institutionalised youth: A critical inquiry. Children & Society, 28(3), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12067
Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 587–610). Springer.
Rudduck, J., & Fielding, M. (2006). Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educational Review, 58(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600584207
Segedin, L. (2012). Listening to the student voice: Understanding the school-related factors that limit student success. McGill Journal of Education, 47(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.7202/1011668ar
Sharafi, S., & Momeni Mahmoui, H. (2023). Negotiation curriculum, requirements, opportunities and challenges. Qualitative Research in Curriculum, 4(11), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.22054/qric.2023.57764.311 [in Persian]
Taylor, C., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902934392
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Treacy, M., & Leavy, A. (2021). Student voice and its role in creating cognitive dissonance: The neglected narrative in teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1876147
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.
Weisi, H., & Ahmadi, R. (2023). Conceptualizing student voice in teacher-student curriculum partnerships within Iran’s higher education. Higher Education, 87(3), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01036-6
Wood, B., Taylor, R., & Atkins, R. (2018). Student voice, citizenship and regulated spaces. In J. Loveridge & R. Bourke (Eds.), Radical collegiality through student voice (pp. 179–196). Springer.
Yoon, J., & Rönnlund, M. (2020). Control and agency in student–teacher relations: A cross–cultural perspective on Finnish and Korean comprehensive schools. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1744350