Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., and Felten, P. (2011) Students as co-creators
of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: implications for
academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development,
16 (2). pp. 133-145. ISSN 1360-144X
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/54132/
Deposited on: 20 December 2011
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk
1
Students as co-creators International Journal for Academic Development
Vol. 16, No. 2, May 2011, 133-145
ARTICLE
Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: Implications for academic
developers
Catherine Bovill
a∗
, Alison Cook-Sather
b
and Peter Felten
c
a Academic Development Unit, Learning and Teaching Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
b The Andrew W. Mellon Teaching and Learning Institute, Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania, USA
c Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, Elon University, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
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.
Key words: learning, engagement, student voice, co-construction, pedagogical planning
Introduction
‘…I think some teachers…are so focused on getting stuff done that they don’t pay attention to their students, who
I think are the most valuable resources in a classroom.’ (Mihans, Long & Felten, 2005, p. 9)
‘Asking students to talk about their education is so simple that — whether we are teachers, parents, researchers,
or policymakers — we inevitably forget to do it.’ (White, 2010, p. xi)
The college student and the business executive quoted above make the same assertion: students are an
important resource but are rarely consulted about their educational experiences. Drawing on current literature
about student engagement and on a growing body of student voice research, we contend that academic staff
should not only consult students but also explore ways for students to become full participants in the design
of teaching approaches, courses and curricula.
This contention challenges conventional conceptions of learners as subordinate to the expert
tutor/faculty in engaging with what is taught and how. Moving away from traditional hierarchical models of
expertise, it strives for ‘radical collegiality’ in which students are ‘agents in the process of transformative
learning’ (Fielding, 1999, p. 22). Such a move raises questions for academic developers about how they can
support and challenge academic staff to be open to democratic approaches and to hold greater expectations for
students as well as challenge students to demonstrate more active engagement in learning.
∗
Email: catherine.bovill@glasgow.ac.uk
International Journal for Academic Development
In this paper, we (1) provide theoretical grounding for these proposed changes, (2) describe three
forms of student participation in pedagogical planning that complicate traditional roles and responsibilities in
higher education and improve the quality of learning that students experience (Cook-Sather, Felten, & Bovill,
2010), (3) outline some of the benefits of student participation in pedagogical planning, and (4) explore some
of the implications for academic developers of doing this work.
Theoretical Grounding
Student engagement is considered crucial to student success in higher education, with engagement understood
as serious interest in, active taking up of, and commitment to learning (Kuh, Kinzie, Shuh & Whitt, 2010). In
virtually every definition of engaged learning, students take an active role in the learning process (Wolf-
Wendel, Ward & Kinzie, 2009), with recent calls for students to become co-creators of learning (Davis &
Sumara, 2002; McCulloch, 2009).
Adopting an active and participatory role in learning is thought to enhance learning processes and
outcomes (Kuh, 2008) through, for example: students engaging in meaningful (as opposed to rote) learning;
staff and students breaking down the power differential between them; and students experiencing the freedom
to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Barnett, 1997; Freire 2003). Student choice
contributes to learners taking more responsibility for their own learning (hooks, 1994; Rogers & Freiberg,
1969).
Active learning implies not only a shift from passivity to agency but also from merely doing to
developing a meta-cognitive awareness about what is being done. When students make this transition from
simply enacting what is required of them to learn, to consciously analyzing what constitutes and enhances that
learning, they change ‘not just what the learner knows…but also who the learner is’ (Dreier, 2003, in
Wortham, 2004, p. 716; see also Cook-Sather, 2006). Baxter Magolda (2009) calls this self-authorship.
Although there might be student and academic staff resistance to this transition, such a transformation makes
students more likely to adopt deep approaches to learning, as they ‘become adaptive experts who both
recognize and even relish the opportunity and necessity for breaking with traditional approaches and
inventing new ones’ (Bain & Zimmerman, 2009, p. 10).
Like engagement, student voice is a theory and set of practices that position students as active agents
in analyses and revisions of education. Developed largely in school contexts in the UK, Australia, Canada,
and the US, ‘student voice’ is premised on the notions that students have a unique perspective on teaching and
learning and that they should be invited to share their insights, which warrant not only the attention but also
the response of educators (Fielding, 2001; Rudduck, 2007). These assertions are supported by Hattie’s (2008)
meta-analysis of student achievement, in which he argues that student learning is deepest when students
become their own teachers and when their teachers learn from them through feedback and other means.
Nascent efforts to engage undergraduate voices in higher education value student perspectives and reposition
students to share those perspectives (Delpish, Holmes, Knight-McKenna, Mihans, Darby, King & Felten,
2010).
Proposals for higher education students to collaborate in pedagogical planning are not new (Dewey,
1916). However, students often lack agency within university educational structures and processes.
Encouragingly, a new strand of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning embraces ‘a commitment to more
shared responsibility for learning among students and teachers, a more democratic intellectual community,
and more authentic co-inquiry’ (Hutchins & Huber, 2010, p. xii). Such sharing of the work of conceptualizing
and enacting approaches to learning requires new notions of power (Mihans et al., 2008) that in turn ‘mean
greater ability to act and thus a greater sense of responsibility’ (Manor, Bloch-Schulman, Flannery & Felten,
2010, p. 10). Positioning students as peers who have valuable perspectives (Sorenson, 2001) is key to
3
supporting collegial partnerships between faculty members and students with the goal of clarifying and
improving classroom practice (Cook-Sather, 2010; 2009, 2008). However, it is important to note that
enhancing student participation in pedagogical planning does not replace teachers’ expertise and their key role
in facilitating learning (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000).
Although there are numerous benefits to student participation in pedagogical planning, scholars also
issue warnings. Participatory approaches risk unquestioningly reifying the views of the less powerful (Cooke
& Kothari, 2001) — in this case, students. This can lead to an uncritical value being placed on students’
views, irrespective of the nature of these views (Silva & Rubin, 2003; Shor cited in O’Loughlin, 1995) and to
ignoring the diversity of motivations and experiences that different students bring to learning. Furthermore,
claims of participation that are not genuine and forms of participation where students remain as ‘outsiders’ in
relation to the academic world may result in the alienation of students (Mann, 2001). Finally, co-creation can
be threatening to students who are used to teachers dominating the classroom and thus may be resistant to
deviating from this norm (Shor, 1992).
Mindful of both the potential and the challenges of this work, we present in the following section
some examples of students becoming partners in pedagogical planning.
Three Forms of Student Participation in Pedagogical Planning
The programmes we describe here unfolded in different contexts: a small liberal arts college in the United
States, a medium-sized liberal arts university in the United States, a large National University in Ireland, and
a small ‘post 1992’ university in Scotland. Each example is outlined in order to demonstrate some of the
range of possibilities within student participation in pedagogical planning.
Students as Co-creators of Teaching Approaches
The first programme we highlight, called Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT), is funded by a grant
from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Part of the Teaching and Learning Initiative at Bryn Mawr College,
the programme invites faculty and students to engage in reflective dialogue about what is happening and what
could be happening in higher education classrooms.
SaLT consists of two interrelated forums for faculty: (1) a semester-long seminar that includes weekly
two-hour meetings, weekly posts to a closed blog, mid- and end-of-semester feedback, and development of a
final portfolio and (2) a partnership with a student consultant. Since 2007, SaLT has supported 108 faculty
members (who span ranks and divisions and range from new to those with 45 years of teaching experience)
and 57 student consultants (second-year through to fourth-year undergraduate students who major in different
fields, claim different identities, and bring varying degrees of formal preparation in educational studies) in a
total of 137 partnerships.
Students are not enrolled in the courses for which they serve as consultants. Rather, each student
consultant: meets with the faculty member to establish goals and plans for the semester; visits one class
session each week; takes detailed observation notes on the pedagogical issues the faculty member identifies;
surveys or interviews students in the class (if the faculty member wishes); meets weekly with the faculty
member to discuss observation notes and other feedback and implications; participates in weekly meetings
with one another and with the coordinator of SaLT; and visits one or more faculty seminars five times over
the course of the semester.
Student consultants and faculty members forge partnerships outside of the regular teacher/student
relationship, explore dimensions of teaching and learning not generally discussed outside of education
courses, and model for the entire community a form of collaboration that challenges traditional role
International Journal for Academic Development
distinctions and notions of who is responsible for the education that unfolds in college classrooms (Cook-
Sather, 2010, 2009, 2008).
Students as Co-creators of Course Design
Although much educational development focuses on pedagogical technique, course design might be the most
important barrier to quality teaching and learning in higher education (Fink 2003). Since 2005, faculty,
students, and academic development staff at Elon University have experimented with a variety of approaches
to partnering in ‘course design teams’ (CDT) that co-create, or re-create, a course syllabus.
Each team’s process varies, but typically a CDT includes one or two faculty, between two and six
undergraduate students, and one academic developer (Delpish et al., 2010; Mihans et al., 2008; Moore,
Altvater, Mattera & Regan, 2010). Faculty members initiate the redesign process, inviting the students and
developer to co-construct a team. Students usually apply to participate in a CDT, motivated by a desire to
contribute to a course they have taken or that is important to the curriculum in their disciplinary home. Once
the CDT is assembled, the CDT uses a ‘backward design’ approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), first
developing course goals and then building pedagogical strategies and learning assessments on the foundation
of those goals.
These student-faculty partnerships to redesign undergraduate courses challenge students’ customary,
and often comfortable, passive role in the classroom, as well as a common academic staff assumption that
their disciplinary expertise gives them complete authority over the learning process. This collaborative
approach prompts both students and academic staff to confront fundamental questions about the nature of
teaching and learning.
Time is the most important element in the success of a CDT. Successful teams usually meet weekly
for two or three months, providing ample opportunities to both accomplish the CDT’s practical purpose of
redesigning the course and, perhaps more importantly, to develop a true partnership that welcomes student
voices. Students often doubt that they will be taken seriously in the process, and they also need time to
develop the language and the confidence to express pedagogical ideas clearly. Many CDTs experience a
liminal moment when everyone present recognizes that a fundamental boundary has been crossed, either by a
faculty member ceding significant authority for the course design or by students claiming power in the
process.
Students as Co-creators of Curricula
Co-creation of curricula implies students and academic staff working in partnership to create some or all
aspects of the planning, implementation and evaluation of the learning experience. A recent research project
examined the role of students as co-creators of first year curricula in the USA, Ireland and Scotland (Bovill,
2009). The example from the USA was based at Elon University and has been outlined above. The other two
examples are presented here.
At University College Dublin, programme co-ordinators redesigned the first year geography
curriculum in collaboration with students. The programme enrolls approximately 400 students each year. The
co-ordinators advertised for four third-year students to apply for the job of co-designing the curriculum with
existing academic staff. These students were paid to design a new virtual learning environment based around
case studies covering important themes for first-year geography, such as migration and the coffee trade. They
then produced written, audio and video resources for the virtual learning environment that first-year students
could interact with and use to support their learning. These case studies prompted discussion among small
groups of students online and in class. The third-year students then collaborated with the programme co-