Student Attitudes to Learning

Without exception, recent key documents in educational policy, planning and evaluation in Victoria refer to student attitudes to learning as important. For example (Kosky 2003; Fullarton 2002; James, Leger et al. 2001; Bradshaw, Clemans, Donovan and Macrae 2001; Kirby 2000; Connors 2000). Similarly, a review of school web sites reveals that student attitudes to their schooling remain a predominant focus of secondary school charters and
mission statements across Victoria1. Often, both school charters and policy documents refer to their commitment to the “major stakeholders” of education in their consultation processes. However, it is alarmingly rare for students to be centrally involved, if at all, in these discussions (some notable exceptions exist, for example; (James, Leger et al. 2001; Australian Centre for Equity through Education 2001) and (Cormack and Cumming 1996). While the reports themselves fail to recognise the absence of student contribution as a weakness, this study concurs with existing research, e.g.(Gitlin 1990) that this fundamentally undermines their validity and usefulness. Apparently, student learning is a paramount concern for educational research. Why then does it not follow that students can and should play an important and valid role in contributing to the understanding of learning processes? Arguably, this conception of students as passive, inactive or at best re-active agents of the educational process creates
one of the most fundamental barriers to real educational change. Student attitudes are considered for their quantitative value for academic theorising but not as substantive contributions to theoretical development in themselves. A growing acceptance of the validity of practitioner research, and the usefulness of self-reflection as a basis for inquiry can and should be extended to students. Moreover, the discussion that takes place in schools and the community more broadly regarding student attitudes to learning is often conducted in isolation from the complex socio-political factors that contextualise the approach of students, see for example (Cuttance 2001; Ainley, Batten, Collins and Withers 1998).