Traditional attitudes to student voice are changing which is highlighted in the recent proliferation of student voice manuscripts the Journal is receiving. Student voice literature currently positions students as active dialogue partners in higher education with much to contribute rather than passive consumers or evaluators. As Editors of the Student Experience section, we view this development in higher education as a significant and emerging trend which has the potential to positively impact practice in higher education and also contribute toward meaningful relational changes for the student experience. We offer some guidelines and recommendations for potential authors on what student voice is and what it is not. We welcome manuscripts that leverage student voice by connecting genuine student-teacher dialogue and articulating how student voice has contributed toward collaboration, change, and empowerment. Manuscripts that articulate how an authentic student voice connects to evidence-based practice and creates inclusive mindsets are also welcome.
- Student voice manuscripts need to connect genuine voice with how students have contributed toward collaboration, change and empowerment.
- Student voice studies should include a clear take-home message and international application for readers to implement in other contexts.
- Student voice has the potential to create dialogue partners and positively impact the student experience in higher education.
- Student voice articles published by JUTLP have increased in the last five years demonstrating a substantial impact on practice.
- Student voice is changing from the traditional unit/course experience surveys and tokenistic representation on higher education governance committees to an increasing recognition of integrated and co-creational roles involving pedagogy, curriculum and equity consultation.
Ashton-Hay, S., & Williams, D. (2023). What Student Voice is and is Not: Connecting Dialogue to Evidence-Based Practice and Inclusive Mindsets. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(6). https://doi.org/10.53761/188.8.131.52