"Condemned to silence?” Students, their point of view and teacher education

Nor should one justify the importance of students' views: educational and instructional pathways are, at least theoretically, designed and made to work for them and their development and learning; listening to their voices should be a recursive practice that influences the continuous redefinition that an educational and instructional system should set out for itself. Widening the practices of listening and facilitating the expression of students' voices have become a tool for more authentic understanding of school phenomena and dynamics to set up research and reform actions in many countries. Since the 1990s and in the first decades of this 21st century, many educational area researches have focused on students' reflection, their dialogues, their discursive re-construction, to discuss and analyze school contexts, path choices and difficulties, services and perspectives in studies. The term "Student Voice" has been used to develop a research perspective on teaching and study pathways that gives "voice" and perspectives on the views of the main actors in education and training processes: students (Alison Cook-Sather, 2006; Fielding, 2004a; 2004b; Jenkins, 2006). The movement is characterized by its intent to demonstrate the "feasibility" of an engaging and empowering approach, including the learning outcomes it produces. This is not, of course, simply a methodological gap; the problem of giving space and decision-making to students is, above all, a cultural and power problem that reveals what is hidden in some "folds" of the educational process (Batini, Benvenuto, 2016). The Italian situation (Grion, 2017) although in the presence of attempts to listen for the understanding of specific problems or to guide decisions, operated by educational research in the field (Batini, 2014; Batini & Bartolucci, 2016; Batini & Benvenuto, 2016; Tracchi, Lutricuso, Minuto & Grion 2007), reveals itself as still strongly backward in the structural use of institutional and didactic practices of listening and involvement of students. Indeed, the difficulty in disseminating such an approach concerns the "depth" with which it is embraced. In fact, as the various models of research from a Student Voice perspective (Grion & Dettori, 2015) highlight, it is not simply a matter of listening to the positions of boys and girls, but rather of involving them in all phases of activities, to the point of developing their research co-leadership skills (Mitra, 2006), attitudes to approach the situations to be investigated as co-researchers or researchers (Fielding, 2001), to empower them to act and not merely to respond to an agenda defined by adults (Lansdown, 2005). On the other hand, the literature related to the Student Voice approach, highlights the danger underlying a listening to students that merely considers them as "data sources" (Fielding, 2001): what some authors refer to as Tokenism (Fielding, 2014; Fletcher, 2003;), i.e., the phenomenon that involves symbolic concessions to a minority and disadvantaged social group, thus offering a semblance of equanimity and justice; but in reality acting only to show that they are doing something right, rather than actually believing it to be so. In this case, as Fletcher (2003) states, effects of manipulating the "student voice" are realized, or their positions are used as elements that offer a kind of decorum (but not substance) to the decisions made by the adult. As mentioned, the research carried out in Italy still remains at a primitive level with respect to the different stages of student involvement proposed by different models. Taking the latter as a reference, we could say that in the empirical contribution that follows, we have positioned ourselves at the basic level of student involvement: that provided by consultative processes, or at any rate referred to listening rather than to a real participation of children in the research process. Making use of a survey carried out as part of the research that Sapienza carries out in collaboration with Campus - Salone dello studente ( du Mérac, Livi & Lucisano, 2020; Lucisano & du Mérac, 2019), various aspects of students' experience in relation to distance and in-presence teaching during the pandemic were examined, and their levels of satisfaction with the school and their teachers were also sought to be understood. It should be pointed out that the dimensions investigated, in this case, with closed items were taken from a previous survey in which students were offered a series of open-ended prompts that would allow for a broad picture of the items they name to talk about their relationship with school. An example of research with students The research sample consisted of 427 Italian students (79% female) enrolled in secondary school (71% enrolled in their senior year) who voluntarily participated in the study. Their mean age was 17.74 years (SD = 0.98), and 58.5% of participants were 18 years old. Information and consent to use their anonymized data were included in the introductory part of the online questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 75 items2 , of which 40 statements were related to satisfaction with various aspects of the school experience. Responses to these items were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Satisfaction with school - descriptive dimensions and analysis The study just conducted considered the dimensions that emerged from the analysis of the statements of students and students participating in a previous survey, mentioned above. The boys and girls highlighted the following aspects of school life as elements to be considered when evaluating their relationship with school and assessing the quality of school: Active participation: the first factor consists of 10 items and the statements that make it up relate to whether the student is able to participate, be able to express themselves, actively participate, take responsibility and have autonomy. More than half of the students are little or not at all satisfied with the opportunities for participation. In general, the possibility of expression, autonomy, and co-decision-making is felt, by most respondents, to be little or not at all present. Social cohesion: the second factor consists of seven items, and measures the quality of relationships, interactions and well-being in the relationship between students in the class. Quality of school spaces: the third factor contains five statements, and investigates how students perceive the conditions in which school environments and security control are located. Quality of the relationship between teachers and students: the fourth fact consists of six items, and investigates how the student evaluates the trusting relationship with teachers, their competence, authority and ability to evaluate and help constructively. Orientation activities The fifth factor contains four items and investigates the type of proposal the student gets regarding orientation and placement in the world of work. Reflections on topical issues: the penultimate factor collects the students' opinion with respect to their perception of topicality and connection to contemporary reality of the contents of the lectures. Spaces for extracurricular activities: the eighth and last factor consists of two items and measures students' satisfaction with the provision of spaces dedicated to activities conducted outside class hours for study or other purposes. Reflections on the survey conducted and conclusion The results of the present research, published in Rubat du Merac, Livi, Lucisano (2020) account for the extent to which students' perspectives represent unprecedented points of view, whose listening and consequent concrete adult responses can only contribute to building "better" educational contexts. On the other hand, the effectiveness of such an approach is amply evidenced by numerous research evidences (Bourke, Loveridge, 2018). It should be noted that sensitivity to the active participation of children, boys and girls in decision-making processes in education and training is now (finally) emerging in Italy as well, where, years, and in some cases decades, after other similar initiatives taken in other countries3 and the diffusion of the Student Voice theme at the level of scientific research4 , specific normative documents have been issued to support and protect such involvement. The clearest call of the "Guidelines for the Participation of Girls and Boys, Girls and Boys" (National Observatory for Childhood and Adolescence, Intergroup on Participation, 2022) is to foster participation that becomes civic awareness and democratic education, clearly evoking one of the fundamental pedagogical principles of Deweyan pedagogy-which in any case substantiates the Student Voice perspective-that is, that school (and university) should be a social context where democratic processes are the focus of educational practices and pathways. So, the real and effective (not feigned, superficial, facade) participation of all in decision-making processes should set itself as a priority pedagogical goal for schools and a fundamental research methodology for researchers in school and university education. The relationships between such an approach and teaching/learning practices, as well as between it and teacher education, are promising spaces, widely investigated in other contexts and indicated as productive of obvious potential (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2014; Grion & De Vecchi, 2014; Mayes et al. 2021; O'Conner, 2022). In these spaces, Italian research may find new trajectories of work, as unexplored as they are promising, to which immediate attention should be paid.