“More than just a student”: How co-creation of the curriculum fosters third spaces in ways of working, identity, and impact
Keywords:third space, co-creation of the cirriculum, identity, student development, civic engagement
The Third Space (Bhabha, 2004) represents non-traditional roles, processes, relationships, and spaces in which individuals work and have impact. This article presents qualitative research into 13 different curriculum co-creation initiatives at five Scottish universities and analyses the forms of Third Space that emerge.The findings highlight that curriculum co-creation can foster Third Spaces that include: new ways of working in learning and teaching, student development in a space between traditional student and teacher roles and identities, and impact in civic engagement within and beyond the university. The respect and reciprocity that characterise curriculum co-creation can greatly benefit students’ personal and professional development as individuals. In addition, I suggest that the Third Space of civic engagement can advance the Third Mission of universities (beyond impact in the first two missions of teaching and research) when students and teachers work in partnership to have a positive effect on the wider society.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revised. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Bhabha, H. K. (2004). The location of culture (Routledge Classics ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Boomer, G. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum. In G. Boomer, N. B. Lester, C. S. Onore, & J. Cook (Eds.), Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century (pp. 4 - 14). London, UK: Falmer Press.
Bovill, C. (2017, October 5). Recapturing the excitement of lectures [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.teaching-matters-blog.ed.ac.uk/?p=2005
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.
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.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). The significance of negotiation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Brooks, A., & Grundy, P. (1988). Individualization and autonomy in language learning. London, UK: Modern English Publications.Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/F044%20ELT-54%20Individualization%20and%20Autonomy%20in%20Language%20Learning_v3.pdf
Bryson, C., & Furlonger, R. (2018). A shared reflection on risk in trying to work with students in partnership. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(24), 1-7.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
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.
Crowther, J., Hemmi, A., & Scandrett, E. (2012). Learning environmental justice and adult education in a Scottish community campaign against fish farming. Local Environment, 17(1), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.646970
Dyer, S., & Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2019). Using play to facilitate faculty-student partnership: How can you co-design a module? In A. James & C. Nerantzi (Eds.), The Power of Play in Higher Education: Creativity in Tertiary Learning. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.pp-299-301
Fraser, S., & Bosanquet, A. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680521
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gutierrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
Hancock, J., & Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2018). Creating spaces: Embracing risk and partnership in higher education. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(24), 1-7.
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher-education
Hermsen, T., Kuiper, T., Roelofs, F., & van Wijchen, J. (2017). Without Emotions, Never a Partnership! International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3228
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 (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lempert, D. (1996). Escape from the ivory tower: Student adventures in democratic experiential education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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://doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v3i2.529
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2018). Students as partners in learning and teaching: The benefits of co-creation of the curriculum. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3207
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (in press). Creativity and collaboration: An exploration of empathy, inclusion, and resilience in co-creation of the curriculum. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal.
Marquis, E. (2018). Embracing and/or avoiding the risks of partnership: A faculty perspective. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(24).
Matthews, K. E. (2016). Students as partners as the future of student engagement. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 1(1).
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammis, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015a). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044551
Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015b). One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044552
Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital media, culture and education: Theorising Third Space literacies. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Predazzi, E. (2012). The third mission of the university. Rendiconti Lincei, 23(Supplement 1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0182-4
Scandrett, E., Crowther, J., Hemmi, A., Mukherjee, S., Shah, D., & Sen, T. (2010). Theorising education and learning in social movements: Environmental justice campaigns in Scotland and India. Studies in the Education of Adults, 42(2), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2010.11661593
Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woolmer, C. (2018). Exploring dimensions of risk in pedagogical partnerships in higher education. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(24).
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).