Students as partners in learning and teaching: The benefits of co-creation of the curriculum
Keywords:Partnership, Co-Creation of the Curriculum, Negotiated Curriculum, Supercomplexity, Self-Authorship
This research explores the benefits of co-creation of the curriculum, which is seen as one form of student-staff partnership in learning and teaching in which each partner has a voice and a stake in curriculum development. This qualitative research analyses participants’ perceptions of co-creation of the curriculum in the Scottish higher-education sector. Initial findings show that some staff and students participating in co-creation of the curriculum perceive it to benefit them by (a) fostering the development of shared responsibility, respect, and trust; (b) creating the conditions for partners to learn from each other within a collaborative learning community; and (c) enhancing individuals’ satisfaction and personal development within higher education. Using Barnett’s conceptualisation of supercomplexity and Baxter Magolda’s three-pronged view of self-authorship, the author suggests that critical and democratic engagement in co-creation of the curriculum can develop the self-authorship of both students and staff members, including their cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal abilities which help them adapt to an ever-changing, supercomplex world.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 65-77.
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Baxter Magdola, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Bovill, C. (2013). Staff–student partnerships in higher education. Educational Review, 65(3), 380-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2012.659454
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. E. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176 - 188). Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Bovill, C., Bulley, C. J., & Morss, K. (2011). Engaging and empowering first-year students through curriculum design: Perspectives from the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.515024
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
Bovill, C., Morss, K., & Bulley, C. (2009). Should students participate in curriculum design? Discussion arising from a first-year curriculum design project and a literature review. Pedagogical Research in Maximising Education, 3(2), 17-25.
Brew, A. (2007). Integrating research and teaching: Understanding excellence. In A. Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 74-88). Abington, UK: Routledge.
Bron, J., Bovill, C., & Veugelers, W. (2016). Students experiencing and developing democratic citizenship through curriculum negotiation: The relevance of Garth Boomer's approach. Curriculum Perspectives, 36(1), 15-27.
Cevero, R., & Wilson, A. (2001). At the heart of practice: The struggle for knowledge and power. In R. Cevero, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Power in practice: Adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crosling, G., Thomas, L., & Heagney, M. (2008). Introduction: Student success and retention. In G. Crosling, L. Thomas, & M. Heagney (Eds.), Improving student retention in higher education: The role of teaching and learning (pp. 1-13). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1916/2004). Democracy and education. New Delhi, India: Cosmo.
Dewey, J. (1934). Individual psychology and education. The Philosopher, 12.
Entwistle, N. (1992). The impact of teaching and learning outcomes in higher education: A literature review. Sheffield, UK: Employment Department, Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate.
Johansson, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Transforming students: Fulfilling the promise of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/publications/high-impact-educational-practices-what-they-are-who-has-access-0
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Kuh, G. D. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levy, P., Little, S., & Whelan, N. (2011). Perspectives on staff-student partnership in learning, research and educational enhancement. In S. Little (Ed.), Staff-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 1-15). London, UK: Continuum International.
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2017). Co-creation of the curriculum: Challenging the status quo to embed partnership. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 3(2). https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/studentchangeagents/article/view/529/pdf
Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0027-3
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1). https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/ijsap/issue/view/306
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA; Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Harvard University. Council Bureau of Study.
QAA. (2012). UK quality code for higher education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/uk-quality-code-for-higher-education-chapter-b5-student-engagement#.WBe3_C2LSUk
sparqs. (2015). About us: sparqs (Student Partnerships in Quality Scotland). Retrieved from http://www.sparqs.ac.uk/aboutus.php
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy, 11, 1-15. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studentengagementliteraturereview_1.pdf
How to Cite
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process - this applies to the submitted, accepted, and published versions of the manuscript. This can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).