Making Learning Meaningful: Integrating Student Voice and Choice in Education
Blerta Mustafa & Zinaide Gruda
Faculty of Philology, University of Prishtina
Introduction
Today, in higher education, there is a growing demand for more learner-centred, responsive, and democratic values in the classroom. Approaches that view students as active agents in their learning are challenging the traditional teacher-centred paradigm, while universities are facing demands for innovation and inclusion. During this transition, the concepts of student voice and choice have gained relevance as indicators of quality in education.
The term “student voice” describes students’ active participation and influence in their learning, decision-making procedures, and institutional policies. Through meaningful dialogue, students share their viewpoints that make an impact on curriculum design and teaching. On the other hand, “student choice” refers to the degree of autonomy to choose topics, ways of learning, and assessment methods. Both these concepts represent an educational philosophy based on agency, respect and collaboration.
The significance of these concepts lies in their compatibility with the educational goals of the 21st-century, which include critical thinking, engagement, flexibility and lifelong learning. In today’s interconnected societies, voice and choice cultivate skills and attitudes required for active citizenship and employability. Students develop a sense of ownership and belonging in the academic community when they are trusted as partners in the learning process.
This article investigates the function of voice and choice in syllabus design, curriculum and assessment, which are three crucial areas of higher education. It considers the impact of these approaches on the improvement of learning and institutional culture by engaging with contemporary international research and discourse.
Conceptual and theoretical grounding
Student voice and choice are grounded in the democratic education tradition, promoted by educational philosophers John Dewey and Paulo Freire, which considers education as a participatory and dialogic process rather than a top-down transfer of knowledge. Education should be a collaborative and reflective process in which students engage actively to create their learning process. For Dewey, education should embody democracy through participation and dialogue, reflecting democracy as both governance and community life. Likewise, Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed emphasizes conversation as a means for transformation and empowerment, by viewing students as co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients.
Following this framework, constructivist pedagogy supports the idea that students’ active engagement, collaboration and reflection to construct meaning results in effective learning. According to this perspective, knowledge should be co-constructed in real-world situations rather than taught.
By questioning the consumerist paradigm which views students as customers, Bovill et al. (2021) proposed models of student partnership that promote a sense of agency and belonging in the learning community through respect among teachers and students as well as shared responsibility for learning. This partnership involves co-construction of the learning environment, curricula and assessment in order for real educational transformation to occur. Therefore, student voice and choice, which promote that partnership, must become ingrained in institutional culture and pedagogical practice.
Voice and Choice in Syllabus Design
An important step in promoting a democratic learning culture that values voice and choice is including students in the design of the syllabus. When students engage in discussions about key components of the courses, such as content, deadlines, assignments, and learning activities, they develop a sense of agency and shared responsibility. In other words, students begin perceiving themselves as active partners in the learning process, while their classroom is viewed as a collaborative learning community. Through this participatory process, students develop 21st-century skills. They enhance their critical thinking and decision-making skills by navigating diverse viewpoints, balancing preferences with academic rigor, and evaluating options. They develop teamwork and negotiation skills by advocating for their ideas. Furthermore, when asked to justify their choices, students develop skills in articulating ideas effectively, listening actively, and responding respectfully. Consequently, they develop communication skills crucial for success in both academic and professional environments. Moreover, students grow a deeper understanding of academic expectations, which in turn makes educational outcomes more relatable and aligned with real-world contexts.
Incorporating student voice and choice in syllabus design also enhances participation and motivation (Flowerday & Schraw, 2000; Flutter, 2006); students are more invested in activities that they have helped define. They hold themselves more accountable; they are internally more driven to engage in learning and to complete assignments and tasks that they have co-constructed.
However, the effective application of voice and choice requires careful facilitation from the course instructor. Including all students in decision-making is time-consuming. This means that course instructors would need to allocate time from their classes to guide the dialogue and help the class reach an agreement. Moreover, some students might advocate for assignments that are less challenging or less educationally valuable. They might also lack the ability to fully understand how their choices will impact their long-term learning outcomes. These factors, among many others, can result in counterproductive outcomes. Therefore, incorporating voice and choice in syllabus design does not translate into complete student autonomy to decide how, when, and what to learn; rather, it must be balanced, guided, and facilitated by the course instructor to ensure alignment with academic goals and rigor. For example, course instructors might give students a choice to select a project topic from a list of topics. However, the instructor needs to ensure that all project assignments demand the same level of effort; it would be inequitable if some students engaged in rigorous field research, involving interviews and observations, while others limited their research solely to online resources. Also, through structured negotiation, students can vote on their preferences (e.g. topic, assignment format, books), while the instructor maintains control over expected learning outcomes and/or deadlines. Overall, to cultivate ownership over learning, increase motivation, and enhance 21st-century skills, voice and choice should be an integral part of course design. However, for this to be effective, course instructors must provide guidance, support, and structure.
Voice and Choice in Curriculum
It is not uncommon for students in higher education to be formally invited to the table with faculty to design and/or revise the curriculum. Including student voice in curriculum design could result in improvement of program structure, learning outcomes, course content, and assessment. When students have input in curriculum design, they also develop a strong sense of agency and accountability, as well as critical and collaborative skills. Programs also become more flexible and relevant, and better align with students’ interests, needs, and experiences.
However, the impact of voice and choice is often diminished as students’ voice in the process is primarily perceived as a requirement imposed by accreditation agencies, rather than a genuine contribution to curriculum improvement. For meaningful student influence and a unique perspective in the curriculum (Cook-Sather, 2006), students need sustained participation in curriculum development committees. This would allow them to familiarize themselves with processes, grow skills, and gain confidence in voicing their perspectives. Effective engagement also requires students to feel supported and encouraged. If students experience institutional distrust and/or fear retaliation from faculty (Mustafa et al., 2025), they may refrain from providing any input, thus restricting impactful curriculum reforms. To equip students with confidence to voice their viewpoints and challenge the established norms and perceived hierarchies, the faculty should provide mentoring, clear guidance, and skill development training to students.
Unfortunately, sustained involvement of students in curriculum design can be impacted by frequent turnover, which interrupts the dialogue and decision-making processes. When students graduate or leave the university, they take their valuable insights and experiences with them, minimizing their influence on curriculum reform. As a result, new cohorts must start from scratch, slowing down the process. Some students have a limited understanding of their role in the curriculum committees; focusing merely on voicing complaints (Carey, 2013) rather than engaging in constructive dialogue. Also, the students’ lack of self-efficacy (Mustafa et al., 2025) and lack of understanding of accreditation standards or pedagogical awareness limit their meaningful contribution in curriculum design.
Despite these challenges, students should be recognized as valuable partners in curriculum design, and as such, they must be encouraged to participate and contribute. Committees should not include a student representative solely to meet accreditation requirements; rather, they should include multiple students over an extended period, students who will actively collect input from peers, labour market representatives, and other stakeholders and suggest improvements. Additionally, even with turnover, committees with multiple student members ensure continuity, preserve institutional memory, and provide guidance and mentorship to new cohorts. Faculty, in turn, must reflect on their own assumptions and recognize that sharing power contributes to shared curricular goals. For changes in the curriculum to be meaningful, it is pivotal to create a supportive and inclusive environment where both faculty and students feel part of something bigger and meaningful.
Voice and choice in assessment
In addition to syllabus and curricular design, the concepts of student voice and choice have become part of the discussion of co-development of assessment design and criteria. Instead of considering students as passive objects of assessment, voice and choice recognize students as partners in the assessment process. By accepting and respecting their reflections on the assessment process, teachers help students to gain ownership and a greater sense of responsibility (Mustafa et al., 2025).
On the other hand, using choice in assessment acknowledges that students have different backgrounds, skills, objectives, and methods to demonstrate their understanding. By offering different formats of assessment, such as group projects, reflective journals, presentations, case studies, or written reports, teachers enable students to engage more actively and meaningfully with the assignment at hand and express their learning. Giving a choice to students does not mean that teachers lower their standards. It rather gives students the opportunity to achieve the learning outcomes through differentiated learning that is of personal relevance to them. As they relate their assessment tasks to real-world situations, students are more engaged, creative and motivated.
Implementation of voice and choice in assessment is in line with the development of students’ critical thinking, reflection, and self-regulation skills. By showing trust in students’ knowledgeable decisions, teachers enable them to gain confidence and to take responsibility for their learning. This method ensures an authentic proof of learning, which leads to a more equitable assessment culture.
Finally, incorporating student voice and choice in assessment redefines the power dynamics. The relationship between students and teachers shifts from authority to partnership. The assessment process transforms into a dynamic process of investigation, development and reflection, which are core values in higher education.
Challenges can certainly occur when voice and choice in assessment are put into practice. Transparency, trust and effort to include students in the assessment design are required. Finding a balance between student preferences students and institutional standards pose challenges for teachers. Additionally, if not managed properly, too much flexibility can result in perceived unfairness. Furthermore, not all students are capable of making informed decisions and expressing their needs in relation to assessment. Therefore, both teachers and students should be engaged in effective communication, scaffolding and ongoing reflection in order to overcome these obstacles.
Conclusion
Including student voice and choice in syllabus design, curriculum, and assessment transforms learning from passive reception of information to learner-centered co-construction of knowledge. When students contribute to decisions that impact them, they develop agency, 21st-century skills, and deeper learning. This in turn strengthens democratic values and builds more engaging classroom communities.
References:
Bovill, C., Matthews, K. E., & Hinchcliffe, T. (2021). Student partnerships in assessment. London: AdvanceHE.
Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketized higher education system: a case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innov.Educ.Teach.Int. 50, 250-260. Doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.796714
Cook-Sather, A., Matthews, K. E., Ntem, A., & Leathwick, S. (2018). What we talk about when we talk about students as partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2),1–9
Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58(2), 183–193. doi:10.1080/00131910600584116
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634–645.
Mustafa, B., Gruda, Z., & Sarris, J. (2025). From spectators to decision-makers: redefining student roles as co-designers of curriculum. Front. Educ. 10:1645916. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1645916