Within higher education, students' voices are frequently overlooked in the design of teaching approaches, courses and curricula. In this paper we outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students as partners in pedagogical planning processes. We present examples where students have worked collaboratively in design processes along with the beneficial outcomes of these examples. Finally, we focus on some of the implications and opportunities for academic developers of proposing collaborative approaches to pedagogical planning.

Against a backdrop of rising interest in students becoming partners in learning and teaching in higher education, this paper begins by exploring the relationships among student engagement, cocreation and student-staff partnership before providing a typology of the roles students can assume in working collaboratively with staff. Acknowledging that co-creating learning and teaching is not straightforward, a set of examples from higher education institutions in Europe and North America illustrates some important challenges that can arise during co-creation. These examples also provide the basis for suggestions regarding how such challenges might be resolved or re-envisaged as opportunities for more meaningful collaboration. The challenges are presented under three headings: resistance to co-creation; navigating institutional structures, practices and norms; and establishing an inclusive co-creation approach. The paper concludes by highlighting the importance of transparency within co-creation approaches and of changing mindsets about the potential opportunities and institutional benefits of staff and students co-creating learning and teaching.

There is a wide range of activity in the higher education sector labelled 'students as partners' and 'co-creation in learning and teaching'. Several frameworks have been proposed to map and categorise existing partnership and co-creation roles, activities, research, and practice. In this paper, I synthesise some of these frameworks to illustrate how the predominant focus in the international literature has been on partnership projects that select small groups of often already super-engaged or privileged students to participate. In contrast, co-creation in learning and teaching, embedded within the curriculum and involving a whole class of students, has been largely overlooked. I explore the potential of co-creating learning and teaching with a whole class of students (including face-to-face, blended, and online settings, and including lectures, tutorials, laboratories, and other methods of teaching); in other words, it is co-creation integral to students' programmes and courses of study. I argue that whole-class approaches to co-creation may be inherently more inclusive of students than other approaches to co-creation and that this approach both relies upon, and contributes towards, building positive relationships between staff and students, and between students and students. I explore some of the challenges of whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching, and I also argue that the benefits suggest this is currently an underutilised and researched approach internationally.

No abstract

There is a wide range of activity taking place under the banner of 'co-created curriculum' within higher education. Some of this variety is due to the different ways people think about 'co-creation', but significant variation is also due to the ways in which higher education curriculum is conceptualised, and how these conceptualisations position the student in relation to the curriculum. In addition, little attention is paid to the differences between co-creation of the curriculum and co-creation in the curriculum. This paper addresses this gap by examining four theoretical frameworks used to inform higher education curriculum design. We examine how each framework considers the position of the learner and how this might influence the kinds of curricular co-creation likely to be enacted. We conclude by calling for more discussion of curriculum and curriculum theories in higher education-and for these discussions to include students. We argue that more clarity is needed from scholars and practitioners as to how they are defining curriculum, and whether they are focused on co-creation of the curriculum or co-creation in the curriculum. Finally, we suggest that paying greater attention to curriculum theories and their assumptions about the learner, offers enhanced understanding of curricular intentions and the extent to which collaboration is possible within any particular context.