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.

This paper reflects upon the development of a multidisciplinary lesson plan aimed at developing science skills for Physics and Astronomy, Geographical and Earth Sciences, and Chemistry students at a research intensive Scottish University. The lesson plan was co-developed with a small group of staff and undergraduate students from these disciplinary areas.The authors discuss the rationale and process for developing the course, drawing upon literature relating to students and staff co-creating curricula in higher education. It offers suggestions for the academic development community about ways in which this kind of collaboration can be supported at local and institutional levels.Keywords: co-construction; course design; engagement; interdisciplinary; student voice IntroductionWe offer a reflective account of developing an interdisciplinary science skills course by staff and students at the University of Glasgow in 2013. The original impetus for devising a new course responded to students wanting to develop their problem solving skills across a range of science-related subjects early in their academic studies. The collaborative materials developed included student-generated content for lectures and laboratory sessions but also material for end of year examinations.The article focusses on the processes and products of the collaboration, relating it to current debates on working with students as partners in learning and teaching. We explain the curriculum development processes and their rationale and, by exploring personal reflections and recent literature, we examine the potential for co-creating curricula.We argue that the process and the product of the collaboration was successful and, in part, even exceeded expectations. The decision to use a collaborative approach to develop the lesson plan was based on positive prior experiences of several of the authors. Our project did not involve academic developers and so we critically reflect upon how further enhancements can be made through greater engagement with educational research literature and involving academic developers throughout the collaborative process. Our reflections attempt to shed light on how a variety of personal and disciplinary assumptions and practices influenced the direction of the collaboration.This article is co-authored by those involved: the students and staff engaged in the research, planning and delivery of the course, and a PhD student researching co-created curricula. Our reflective account has been drawn from a framework of questions, provided by the PhD student, relating to the collaboration.Authors provided individual responses in the first instance. With permission, responses were shared and discussed between all authors and, from this, categories for inclusion in this article were agreed by consensus.The process of gathering individual reflections helped make explicit assumptions that had not previously been discussed collectively. As a result, multiple perspectives from different disciplines and roles provide a rich picture for pract...

No abstract

No abstract