Catastrophic co-production: A student-staff partnership for developing an educational game

We describe the production of an educational game (Catastrophic) for supporting biology learning in higher education (HE) that was developed through a partnership between students and academic staff. We consider the ways in which the development project intersects with the use of game-based learning in HE and with Students as Partners (SaP) practice. We describe the rationale for the project, discussing the use of games in the context of a shift from surface to deep learning during the transition to HE. We then reflect upon the development process and the resulting game, drawing on student and staff perspectives gathered using interviews. Finally, we make recommendations for others embarking on student-staff partnerships for the co-creation of teaching and learning tools.

transitions (e.g. from directed to autonomous learning, from novice to participant) (Hussey & Smith, 2010). A key transition is the shift g to meet course requirements, versus a holistic interest in, and understanding of, the subject area, respectively (Entwhistle & Peterson, 2004). However, first year HE students tend to prioritise engagement with learning when there are clear links to assessment, which promotes a focus on easily measurable outcomes and learning for the test (Donnison & Penn-Edwards, 2012).
This article describes the production of an educational game through staff-student partnership. The project emerged from a desire to better support student learning in a core first-year undergraduate biology module at the University of York, covering a range of topics in animal and plant biology, from the nervous system and physiology, through individuals and populations, to communities, ecosystems and global cycles. Module evaluations over several years indicated that some students focused on memorising content rather than understanding synoptic, correlative and causal relationships between concepts. Frequent comments referenced the amount of content delivered across the year in relation to so many details given in lectures but so little asked in the exam lack of understanding about topic is a waste of time .
Game-based learning approaches are increasing in prominence in education;  et al., 2014). Similarly, mastery of a game does not necessarily equate to long-term retention or academic achievement (Péladeau et al., 2003). However, people may learn better when information is embedded in a story rather than presented as a set of facts (Kapp, 2012), and through active engagement rather than passive presentation of knowledge (Kolb, 1984). A well-designed game provides timely feedback, supporting progression within an engaging narrative while fostering patience and resilience following failure (Stott & Neustaedter, 2013). It can support students to develop new and critical ways of understanding. In a systematic review, Vlachopoulos & Makri (2017) found that games in HE had a predominantly positive impact on learning goals.
Playing a multiplayer game can stimulate discussion among players and build interpersonal relationships that support students beyond their game play (Nasir et al., 2013). Group work is increasingly used in HE to promote deep, active, experiential and collaborative learning (Davies, 2009). Group work also provides opportunities for peer ost confidence (Scott, 2017). A multiplayer, game-based teaching tool therefore seemed an apt choice for supporting students.
CONTEXT: CATASTROPHIC CARD GAME Catastrophic E its species: for example, fruit production in a plant supports seed dispersal, while animal species with fur can better survive cold conditions. Species are either well-adapted and resilient , or they are vulnerable and will become extinct I ir communities, for example through cross-breeding species. For more details or to download Catastrophic, see catastrophic.york.ac.uk (Holland et al., 2018).
The mechanics of Catastrophic draw on biological mechanisms so that key learning outcomes are embedded within game play, stimulating discussions and reflection among players about the interplay of the content and concepts they encounter, and the effect they have on the larger biological picture. I content and examples taken from module teaching sessions and hence can also be used for revision.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Catastrophic version 1.0 was produced by five undergraduate students (three studying biology; and one each studying industrial design, and interactive media; hereafter each from the departments of Biology, Education, and Theatre, Film and Television. One academic led the project, recruiting partners, and providing oversight and operational management. We reasoned that a Students as Partners (SaP) approach would be a productive way to learn from s learning biological content and/or transitioning to studying at an HE institution. The staff-student partnership can be characterized according to the variables proposed by Bovill (2019). The co-creation was initiated by staff; the focus was learning and teaching; the context was extra-curricular for the students. The three biology students were selected from 16 applicants based on observations of their interactions during a team task, while the two design students were recruited via a competitive summer programme. The , in that they had previously completed the module in question; the design students were . All the students were between their first and third year of undergraduate study. The scale of the co-creation was one project that lasted two months. The student role was as pedagogical co-designers; the nature of their involvement was as partners, although they led at times; the student partners were paid in money for their time (with funding provided by institutional awards). The main motivation for staff co-creating was to incorporate student perspectives.
The development process began with students and staff playing a wide range of games together, to support the development of social bonds and hence the quality of the student-staff partnership. Partners also developed an appreciation of game mechanics and P test-play the developing game during co-production, to support the development of an effective product.
The biology students worked on Catastrophic during the University summer vacation full-time (37 hours per week) for four weeks, and subsequently part-time for six weeks (approximately 6 hours per week). After one week, the design students joined the project, working full-time for nine weeks. During the three-week overlap, the students occupied the same physical working space. They had daily interactions with the project lead and weekly or fortnightly meetings with all academic staff.

REFLECTIONS: STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROCESS AND DEVELOPED GAME
York University " U U rom a SaP perspective (Matthews, 2017), as it fits with their commitment to providing educationally purposeful -C -Sather, 2015 see also Dunne & Zandastra, 2011;Healey, 2019;Neary, 2010). The Union is particularly interested in resisting neoliberal approaches F consumers rather than as equal participants in learning communities (Peters, 2018).
The methodological approach uses qualitative content analysis (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The focus of data collection and analysis was students and staff working in partnership. The process was informed by familiarity of the researchers with SaP work and related research literature. A representative of the Union (NG) interviewed staff and students post-production to gather reflections on the development process. First, the interviewer met with the project lead to discuss the project. Two (biology) students were then interviewed together. Notes from this interview were used to inform a second interview, with one of these two students, to explore further some of the issues raised. Two academic staff were then interviewed together. The detailed field notes from all three interviews were analysed to produce codes representing potentially significant experiences and perceptions. These codes were organized into categories, for example, separating staff and student perspectives, and themes were identified and described. Throughout the analysis, the interpretations were shared and discussed with the project lead and considered in light of the research literature on SaP, leading to refinement of the analysis. Finally, the analysis was revisited in response to reviewer comments, resulting in six themes.

C
Two partnering students were initially worried that the academics would dismiss

H chilled partnership
This was not established explicitly or enforced, instead arising spontaneously during the project. The students described a relaxed working environment, characterised by freedom and collaboration, and iterative dialogue with other students and academics, which was free from judgement and open-ended. Students contrasted this dialogic environment with discussion-based classes, e.g. seminars, where they fear of saying something incorrect, even if they believe they know the answer.
The academic staff reiterated these positive experiences. One reflected that there was no need to micro-manage the students, as they trusted what the students were producing. The same academic reflected on students feeling confident and relaxed enough to challenge staff on their use of , resulting in staff reducing use of technical terms and instead focussing on the core ideas.

Working across disciplines
A key feature for the students was working across disciplines, underpinned by a mutual appreciation for the diverse knowledge necessary to make the game effective. The biology students particularly enjoyed teaching the design students about science and learning about game mechanics from them, describing specific processes of co-production that required interdisciplinary negotiation. For example, on one occasion:

the biology students] identified that people could win without creating species. This was a problem because building species and learning about traits and surviving events was the whole point. The design students then tweaked the game mechanically
Academic partners also highlighted interdisciplinarity as a key strength of the project, although one suggested that where staff participate on the basis of their unique disciplinary expertise build less effective relationships with students.

Student-led
Students and staff commented that the students made a significant contribution to driving the project in terms of developing the game concept and mechanics, and writing the rules. The students formed a strong partnership, deciding on roles and how to work together, primarily working independently, while a checked sense check, and provide disciplinary expertise for example on biology and educational game mechanics.
The students reflected positively on the ownership they felt, describing Catastrophic O alluded to a disruption of the traditional power relationship between students and staff: they knew more than the academics and they enjoyed being able to explain biology to the non-biology academics.
While students were able to focus their attention on the project without distractions during working hours, time constraints for staff meant they were unable to collaborate with the students on a daily basis. This gave staff a sense of uncertainty, but they resisted the urge to take control. Staff spoke about being amazed at what the students were producing and how little staff involvement was required. Their experience supports Healey and H parties should be prepared to some degree to occupy different spaces if it is to be

Relational experiences during co-production
Students spoke about the social aspect of game playing and the importance of getting to know each other. They reflected that the relaxed environment and relationships fostered by test-playing iterations of the game constructively, and to make decisions as a group.
One student compared the project to other group work at the University, where students do not build relationships and are not comfortable arguing points. They described going along with ideas in curricular group work, often articulated by stronger voices. For this student, the project moved beyond that because they formed could challenge each other without judgement. Of particular significance for the students interviewed was the forming of relationships across disciplinary boundaries, talking about

Views of games and game-based learning
The biology students were initially sceptical about using games in a HE context. One student reasoned that students would not be keen because of the perception that games are childish. Another suspected that Catastrophic would not be used because first years prioritize only what they must do, rather than anything optional. Neither student initially thought about the project in terms of learning and teaching. As they worked more closely with the gaming-focused design students, they gained insights into game mechanics, and started to think about producing a game that balanced game mechanics, correct biology, and evaluative learning. Through working in partnership with other students and staff to make the game effective, they reflected more on ways of learning, particularly promoting a health

Developing a critical pedagogical lens
The students referred to behind the scenes look , which had increased their understanding of the course-design process: I design, choosing assessments and teaching styles T how others learn and how nice it is to have an impact on other cohorts . A choices, these reflections suggest the development of a more informed critical perspective and the recognition of themselves, their classmates, and teaching staff as a community of learners (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2015). This is reflected by the developed game, which avoids recall and instead encourages players to engage in evaluation and connect game content with the real world.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Catastrophic has been successful in terms of student engagement and perspectives, with positive feedback over two academic years relating to learning support and motivation.
For more detail, see catastrophic.york.ac.uk/about. The game will remain a central part of teaching and learning in animal and plant biology at York, and continues to evolve through staff-student partnership. The Catastrophic co-production process has also influenced the way in which other co-development projects are established, leading projects to ensure that students form a close-knit team (often by playing games together), lines of communication are clear among students and staff, and the allocation of time and tasks are jointly owned and managed.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STAFF-STUDENT PARTNERSHIP
We present recommendations for project-based student-staff partnerships for the co-creation of teaching and learning tools, and for the integration of partnerships into teaching more broadly, drawing on our experiences, interviews, and discussions.

For others using a SaP approach for co-creation of teaching and learning tools
Explore and develop staff expectations and resilience to sharing control with students.
Recognise time constraints for partners and the impact on their capacity to coproduce consistently and at every stage.
Recognise the opportunity project-based partnership approaches offer for students: including the space to focus on a single activity, and practice negotiating targets, problems and deadlines.
Train students in pedagogy and course design so they can recognise it in their teaching.

Partnership-based group work and assessment
Reframe student group work carried out as part of formal teaching as partnerships between students. The students cited better relationships and dialogue in this project environment compared to curricula group work. SaP approaches may encourage a focus on relational aspects of cooperative learning as well as learning of content and assessment output. SaP project-based approaches could support assessment tasks that involve withingroup feedback dialogue, authentic co-assessment and a sequence of learning tasks, enabling development over time rather than an isolated assessment activity (Scott, 2017).

Interdisciplinary projects in mainstream teaching
Interdisciplinary SaP projects inspire conversations about whether pedagogies, predominantly focused on passing assessments on disciplinary content, can genuinely help and contextualise from and beyond their own experience and to develop their own sense of expertise (Hauke, 2019). Our students negotiated different forms of knowledge and perspectives, requiring movement and exploration beyond a single discipline (Hauke, 2019).
We recommend that practitioners consider how an interdisciplinary partnership approach could and practice building knowledge for themselves and within diverse learning communities.

SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS
We have described the process by which an educational game was developed through a partnership between students and academic staff drawn from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. Our interviews and discussions with students and staff indicate that the process allowed students to engage in rich dialogue, meaningfully engage in leadership activities, experience positive relationships, develop positive views of gamebased learning, and display sophisticated consideration of pedagogy. We suggest that the notions of partnerships and interdisciplinary projects provide suitable contexts for learning within formal HE settings such as module teaching.
Our findings are unlikely to be generalizable to all SaP contexts. Reflecting upon the variables identified by Bovill (2019) that characterised this project, working with a small group of selected students, some of whom had previous experience of the module, and all of whom were paid for their time, may have been particularly supportive of a successful partnership. The timing of the project within the summer vacation, allowing a high degree of student focus on the project, may also have played a significant role. To transfer such a project to a curricular, whole-class setting would require careful consideration.

ETHICAL APPROVAL
Ethical approval for publishing our findings was granted by U Y Department of Education Ethics Committee.