This example from the PEEL CD-ROM illustrates
Teaching for Quality Learning Principle 1:
Share Intellectual Control with Students

NEGOTIATING COURSE CONTENT
Louise Piva, Frankston High School, Victoria

Introduction

A middle school Social Studies class had completed a term’s work on the compulsory aspect of the course. They had covered such topics as:

• The Australian identity
• Values
• Becoming an individual
• The Family
• The Government

Traditionally, the second term of the course is to promote a wider understanding of how society operates, particularly Australian society.

The aim of this strategy was to encourage students to have ownership of the course. This was to be accomplished by allowing the students to choose the topics to be covered as well as the assessment items for each topic. It was also expected that through this strategy students would also experience democracy at work, something the course tried to promote. Finally, the students would hopefully feel that they had some control over their learning.

The activity

In the first lesson after term break, the class had a discussion about the content of the course so far. The students were encouraged to talk openly about what they liked and disliked. Other issues discussed included the types of assessment used, classroom activities, and their expectations of the course.

After a substantial amount of time discussing these issues, the students were asked to focus on the coming term. At this stage, they were informed that the remaining course content was going to be established by them. The students were asked to consider what types of issues or topics they would like to study. A brainstorm of possible ideas for topics followed. The students were directed to keep the aim of the course (which had been discussed at length) in mind when suggesting topics. Obviously, inappropriate topics were not considered, although students were usually aware of the types of ideas that would be acceptable. Finally, the students were asked to think about this idea overnight.

The following lesson, negotiations continued. A term outline was established on the board. The class was instructed on the requirements of the course and the parameters of time. The following table was drawn on the board:

Week
Content
Assessment Item
Due Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(exam week)

Next, I wrote a list of possible topics on the board. These included suggestions from the previous lesson and suggested topics from the course outline. I also used topics offered in relevant textbooks. This required some preparation of possible topics as available resources and materials need to be sought out. The students were then asked to add any others they would like to study. The variety of topics included:

• The aged in our society
• Multiculturalism
• Indigenous peoples
• Childhood and children’s rights
• Racism and prejudice
• Human rights

and many others.

As a class, the students then chose from the following possibilities:

• 2 topics for 4 weeks each, or
• 3 topics over the 8 weeks, or
• 4 topics for 2 weeks each with shorter assessment items.

The students chose the 3 topics option. Crunch time had come and they had to choose the three topics. Firstly, they got to delete the least desirable topics off the board. Then the final three were chosen with a show of hands for each topic. The top three most poplar won. Throughout this process, students discussed why they would like or not like to study particular topics. Interestingly, at times students tried to persuade others to vote for particular topics, often giving relevant and quite thoughtful reasons. The topics finally chosen were: Childhood and Children’s rights, Homelessness and Racism and prejudice.

The next process was to slot them into the course outline in the preferred order and assign assessment items to each one. This decision involved deciding on assessment techniques. The assessment had to be an extended piece of writing and another had to be an oral presentation. Their choices were:

• Practical test
• Short answer/essay exam
• Field report with an excursion
• Formal essay (500-600 words)
• Oral presentations – individual, 5 minutes
• Seminar presentation – group, 15 minutes
• Debate.

This process involved the longest discussion as assessment items were matched with each topic. The students did some forward planning by not choosing to do an essay during exams, or an oral presentation when English presentations were due. The negotiation included changing the order of topics so that assessment items would fall due at manageable times of the term. The final product looked like:

Week
Content
Assessment Item
Due Date
1
2
3
Homelessness field report
4
5
6
Childhood and Children’s rights – Essay
7
8
Racial Prejudice Debate

Finally, the students were asked to draw the course outline on a new page of their notebooks. The next day, with some preparation on my behalf, their (or our) course began.

Reflection

The aim of this strategy was to give the students some ownership of a course that was non-compulsory. Many of the students had not chosen the subject, and their subsequent negativity was stopping it from being engaging, despite the enthusiasm on my behalf. The strategy fulfilled the aims. The students were more positive and often in class earlier. They reminded me of assessment due dates and the change over times for topics. They were often keen to know what they would be doing tomorrow – yet regularly, I didn’t know. Considering these mostly positive aspects, I would recommend this as a good strategy to use with a disparate group of students.

The nicest surprise was that students chose interesting and what I believed to be unusual topics. In planning for this unit at the beginning of the year, I had dismissed both the homelessness unit and the racial prejudice unit, believing that the students wouldn’t be interested. I was wrong. Interestingly, it was the homelessness unit that engaged the students the most and even now those students refer to ideas raised in that topic.

The most difficult aspect of this exercise was surrendering control and being at the mercy of students. However, this was counteracted by the change in the students’ attitude and behaviour. They were actually easier to teach. The second most difficult aspect was the extra work involved in designing topics at the last minute. A hectic dash was made to ‘book in’ for excursions and organise time for guest speakers, and so on. I think that the next time I do this, the negotiation of the topic would best be done in the last week of the previous term, if possible. Lastly, it may also have been better for planning purposes, to establish as a class, key questions for each topic. This is certainly something I would do next time.

In the future, it may be possible to take the strategy further and allow the students to choose teaching strategies. It may even be possible to allow students to choose topics that they may like to teach. These, of course, would only be suitable for a cohesive and somewhat reliable class. It may also be possible for those more prescriptive courses for negotiation to occur over the some smaller aspect of the course – for example, when the due dates for assessment items should be. It is important to acknowledge that the students were aware of the parameters involved in establishing assessment items and often were able to make wiser choices about when they should fall due. Overall, the strategy was effective in achieving its aim of giving the students ownership of their course.

© PEEL, 2001